Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE IVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

MERSEYSIDE PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

ST. PAUL'S PLAYING FIELD (TRUST) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Political Situation

Mr. John Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in political terms in reconciling the different views held by elements in both sections of the community.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which political groups in Northern Ireland he has met since becoming Secretary of State to date; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Carson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has now completed his round of talks with the political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): Since taking office I have met all the principal political groups in Northern Ireland. In recent weeks I have had further discussions with the Official Unionist Party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the Alliance Party, and the Unionist Party of Northern Ireland.
All the principal parties accept Northern Ireland's right to remain within the United Kingdom so long as the majority of the people there so wish, and all want some form of devolved government. I regret that I see little sign as yet that they are willing to build upon these and other areas of common ground so as to reach agreement on the issues that still divide them. I have assured the parties that the Government want to establish a devolved Government in Northern Ireland in which representatives of both sections of the community can play a part.
If the parties show some readiness to reach agreement the Government will not be slow to play their part. Meantime, until an acceptable form of devolved government can be created the Government will continue to provide responsible and effective administration in the interests of all the people in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since everything that we have suggested has borne so little fruit, the only thing that we can do is to tell the people of Northern Ireland who have dismissed our initiatives that the solutions must come from them and that they must be on the basis of co-determination? To this extent, will he consider whether we could have some form of non-legislative devolution to get people together to talk? I have even heard it suggested that we could open the bar at Stormont so that the various political factions could talk together.

Mr. Mason: I am willing to listen to any suggestion that emanates from the ideas of the political parties in Northern Ireland. There were discussions on administrative devolution, but if devolution is to be right and proper, and respected in Northern Ireland, it must be in such a form that there is real power and responsibility for the local politicians concerned.

Mr. Carson: Does the Secretary of State recall that during the last Northern Ireland Question Time he stated that the official Unionist Party leadership was unwilling to move and was imposing a veto on political movement by its attitude? Will he tell the House whether any willingness was shown by the SDLP to move from its entrenched position, even on such matters as recognition and support for the RUC and the constitution of the Irish Republic?

Mr. Mason: On one side there is the mentality of not moving an inch and wanting to abide only by the majority Convention report, but on the other side I hope to see some flexibility by the SDLP in its thinking about the rôle of its representatives.

Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that political institutions are a means not of reconciling differences but of enabling people to live with their differences, and that it is just as unreasonable to make agreements between parties the condition of devolution to Northern Ireland as it would be to make agreements between the two Front Benches the condition of the functioning of parliamentary democracy in this country?

Mr. Mason: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my job is not to impose any solutions on Northern Ireland. I want to assist the parties concerned to reconcile their differences. If I can see a willingness for reconciliation between the majority and the minority communities and the emanation of the germ of an idea on some form of devolution, I shall be only too pleased to assist.

Mr. Neave: Reverting to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis), does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the absence of any organised forum encourages an entrenched mentality and outlook? Therefore, will he consider setting up a political forum that can discuss the subject of Ulster? That would be of great importance.

Mr. Mason: I wonder whether the time is opportune for that. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman will know, as he watches the Irish scene, that one of the reasons why there is not a willingness on the part of political parties to move from their entrenched positions is that in eight months' time local government elections will take place. The parties are now building their political platforms and making sure that their electorate can see that they have clear-cut policies—

Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman not do that too?

Mr. Mason: —and therefore the parties feel that if they were to talk it might cloud the issues that they want to get across to their electors.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall allow three more supplementary questions, but that means that we shall have to go more quickly on subsequent Questions.

Mr. Fitt: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still Government policy, supported by the Opposition and all hon. Members, to try to establish in Northern Ireland political institutions that will have the support of the whole community? Will he confirm that there is no possibility of this Government or their successors—in so far as my right hon. Friend can speak for them—returning to a one-party ascendancy Government in Northern Ireland, which will


bring with it all the troubles that have led to the present deteriorating situation?

Mr. Mason: I hope that I have made it clear beyond a shadow of doubt to the official Unionist Party in Northern Ireland that there will not be a return to a one-party State. I have endeavoured to establish that clearly in the minds of all the politicians who have been to see me in recent weeks. Devolved government in Northern Ireland must provide for the participation and partnership of representatives of both communities.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman not losing sight of the main object of democratic government, which is the right of people to elect those whom they wish to elect? Are the Government not standing against one of the most primitive of human rights—that of people electing their own Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is more important than his imposing from the top what he believes to be right?

Mr. Mason: The people of Northern Ireland do elect their own representatives, and most of them are sitting on the Opposition side in this House. Those hon. Members form Northern Ireland's parliamentary representation. The Unionists and the SDLP are talking about the political gap between local government elections and Parliament. That gap has to be filled.

Mr. Kilfedder: In order to cut through Government humbug and political confusion in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman consider, as a step towards restoring democracy to the Province, allowing Northern Ireland Committees to sit in the Stormont so that the people of Northern Ireland can at least see democracy in action there?

Mr. Mason: I would not give consideration to that suggestion just yet. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not accusing me and my Ministers of political humbug. At least we are giving a decisive lead to the people of Northern Ireland, which is more than the hon. Gentleman and some of his friends are doing.

Unemployment

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ire-

land what is the present level of unemployment in the Province; and what percentage of those out of work are in the 16 to 30 years age group.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about unemployment among school leavers in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): The total number unemployed in Northern Ireland in February of this year was 56,660, or 10·7 per cent. of all employees. Age analyses of the unemployed are produced on a quarterly basis and only for broad age bands; the most recent information shows that in December 1976, 65 per cent. of the unemployed were in the 16 to 34 age group.
The number of unemployed school leavers in Northern Ireland in February of this year was 2,434. This represents a fall of almost 75 per cent. compared with the 9,082 unemployed in July of last year. The rate of reduction in unemployment amongst school leavers is similar to that in previous years.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for those figures, although I was not able to take them in as well as I had wished. Does the Minister agree that it is clear that there are large numbers of people in this age group who are still out of work and that it is from this group that recruitment for terrorism takes place? What initiatives has the Department of Manpower Services taken to help these people obtain a proper training, and is the Minister satisfied with the number of skillcentres in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Concannon: I am satisfied with the number of Government training centres in Northern Ireland. We have 14 centres there, which, in proportion to the size of the population and the number of people being dealt with, is 10 times greater than the provision in Great Britain. We therefore have reason to be satisfied. Several schemes to alleviate unemployment have been undertaken, and some are specifically aimed at young people, including, for instance, the youth employment subsidy. Other measures, such as the job release scheme and the temporary employment subsidy, are intended to alleviate unemployment in all


age groups. This is a long-lasting problem in Northern Ireland, because some basic industries have declined in recent years and it has been difficult to get new investment, partly because of the troubles.

Mr. Hardy: Cannot some improvement be discerned, despite the continuation of recessionary conditions? How many places are available at the sustantial number of training centres in Northern Ireland, and is the figure an improvement on previous years?

Mr. Concannon: We are always willing to consider new ways of helping to deal with the problem. For instance, we are now training people on factory premises. We have a good record in this respect in Northern Ireland.
Unemployment among school leavers will gradually reduce until Easter, when there will be another steady influx on to the market, followed by a much larger flow in June. We are always looking for methods of getting these young people into employment.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said in his supplementary question, may I ask whether the Minister is prepared to consider the introduction of what might be called a Young Ulster Community Service, to provide for all young people after they leave school beneficial alternatives to unemployment, crime and para-military activities? Would not the expenditure required on such a service help to bring order and peace, and thus prove a true economy?

Mr. Concannon:: I am prepared to consider any scheme for getting school leavers into jobs. There are a number of schemes in Northern Ireland in respect of which we are well ahead of the rest of Great Britain with such provision. I am continuing to examine this problem and I shall consider any suggestion.

Mental Patients

Mr. Bradford: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to amend the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1961 making it a statutory obligation to inform a patient in a Northern Ireland mental hospital that

he or she has been categorised as an informal patient and is free to leave the hospital at will.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): No, Sir.

Mr. Bradford: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one in four mental health cases in Northern Ireland is admitted compulsorily under the emergency procedure and that this is detrimental to the rights of individuals? Is he aware of the concern about the emergency procedure and about the need for Northern Ireland's Mental Health Act 1961 to be brought into line with the United Kingdom's 1959 Act? Does he agree that before electroconvulsive therapy is applied the permission of a patient or his nearest relative ought to be obtained? Does he—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a fellow Methodist preacher, but he is going on a bit.

Mr. Carter: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this subject and of the correspondence that he has had with my noble Friend. He will be aware that procedures exist to meet the point that he is making and, probably more important, the 1961 Act is under review and it is possible that statutory measures may be taken to meet the other points that the hon. Gentleman was making.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that relatives and next of kin should have a stronger influence on decisions affecting the extent and form of treatment of mental patients?

Mr. Carter: Next of kin are informed at the same time as patients when a formal stage is reached in a patient's residence in an institution.

Cigarette Sales (Children)

Mr. McCusker: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to introduce legislation in Northern Ireland to ban the sale of cigarettes and tobacco products to children under 16 years of age.

Mr. Carter: Legislation on this matter is currently under consideration, but I am unable to be more definite until all necessary consultations have been completed.

Mr. McCusker: Is the Minister aware that his statement will be welcomed by many people in Northern Ireland? Extra measures have been announced in the House this week. Does the Minister agree that it is important that he should remove this anomaly? Is it not disgraceful that Northern Ireland should be the only part of the United Kingdom where sales of cigarette and tobacco products can still be made legally to children under the age of 16?

Mr. Carter: I am aware of all that the hon. Member has said, but it will be up to the people of Northern Ireland to decide whether they want to come into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. We welcome observations on this issue from the hon. Member and from anybody in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fell: I am not pro-smoking, but have the police in Northern Ireland not got enough to do without the introduction of legislation of this kind?

Mr. Carter: We are not simply talking of dealing with the matter in this way. Perhaps parents would be influenced if we had some legislation on the statute book. That is always possible.

European Community (Representation)

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy towards the representation of Northern Ireland in the Council of Europe and in the institutions of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Concannon: The United Kingdom's representation in the European Assembly of the EEC and in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is organised on a parliamentary basis.
There are well-established ministerial and official links which ensure that the United Kingdom's representation in the other institutions of the Community takes full account of Northern Ireland's interests.

Mr. Farr: Is it not completely wrong that Northern Ireland is not represented on either of these bodies when, for instance, Luxembourg, with only one quarter of the population of Northern Ireland, has six Members of Parliament

on each of these international bodies? Is the Minister satisfied that the Northern Ireland case is not going by default in international circles?

Mr. Concannon: I am happy at the results that we have been obtaining, in Northern Ireland terms. I am fully involved, as are Ministers in other Departments and our officials, at a high level. I am satisfied that Northern Ireland interests are not going by default.

Mr. McNamara: The House will be pleased that the whole ministerial team is present in the Chamber and in the other place today. That must be unique, and it suggests that the Northern Ireland situation is improving. Is my hon. Friend aware of the dangers inherent in the question by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr)? It tends to suggest that Ulster should have independent and separate representation. Is he aware that there are some people who would go along with that idea and perhaps would like to see the Province in the Republic? If we are one Parliament and one people, should we not be satisfied with the situation?

Mr. Concannon: I accept my hon. Friend's analysis. The first part of my hon. Friend's question was observant, as usual. Even Northern Ireland Ministers cannot be in two places at once.

Kilcleen, Castlederg (Border Crossing)

Mr. Dunlop: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to fortify and secure Kilcleen post cross roads on the outskirts of Castlederg.

Mr. Mason: We are urgently looking at the whole problem of improving the security of the area around Castlederg. The Kilcleen border crossing forms a vital part of this. The study is expected to be completed shortly, and I shall write to the hon. Member in reply to his recent letter to inform him of any action that the security forces are taking as a result.

Mr. Dunlop: Is the Secretary of State aware that this is an open road and an approved route from the Republic into Northern Ireland, and that it has been frequently used by the IRA to shoot up the local police station that is situated on the road? Is he aware that a 200-lb


bomb was delivered to the centre of Castlederg on 29th December via that road? Does he agree that there is little Army activity on the road? Is he aware that there is little risk of British soldiers being brought to court for straying over the border in the Castlederg area, because there are not many soldiers there? Will the Secretary of State undertake to visit this much-bombed town in the near future, along with the town of Strabane, which has been equally heavily bombed?

Mr. Speaker: May I appeal to hon. Members? It is not fair to others lower down on the Order Paper if we do not have shorter questions and answers.

Mr. Mason: I shall consider the hon. Member's suggestion. This is an approved crossing that is used for Customs purposes as well, and that makes the situation more difficult. I have asked for a report from security officials and I shall see what I can do to improve security there.

Education (Integration)

Mr. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new plans he is putting forward to encourage integrated education in Northern Ireland.

Sir Nigel Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will convene a conference to consider integrated education in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Carter: My noble Friend the Minister of State has nearly completed the process of taking soundings from interested bodies on this matter. The suggestion that a conference should be held on the subject is still being considered.

Mr. Townsend: Why do the Government not shelve their unwanted and outdated plans for more comprehensive schools and concentrate their minds on breaking down the religious barriers in education? That would be more worth while.

Mr. Carter: Both those matters are the subject of continuing consultation.

Sir N. Fisher: Does the Minister recall that the former Secretary of State promised a conference on this matter? Will he at least set up a working party seriously to consider the idea? Does the Minister agree that in the special context

of Northern Ireland it is extraordinary that the Cowan Report on comprehensive education hardly mentions the subject, despite the fact that the, latest public opinion poll revealed that 86 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland want it, including 65 per cent. of the Roman Catholic population?

Mr. Carter: Everyone doubts the forecasts that are made by opinion polls. All I can say is that this is a sensitive subject and that consultations are being carried out. On the basis of the evidence derived from those consultations we shall consider whether a conference or perhaps even a working party should be established.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Minister aware that everybody that I have spoken to in the education world wants this conference to be held as soon as possible? Why is there this delay in holding the conference?

Mr. Carter: The hon. Member cannot have been listening to my answers to the previous two questions. We are having consultations. They began only last autumn, and there are other people and organisations to be seen. Until we have seen everybody nothing definitive will be said by my right hon. Friend on the subject.

Temporary Employment Subsidy

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the effect on employment of the temporary employment subsidy scheme in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Concannon: From its inception on 18th August 1975 until 25th February 1977 the temporary employment subsidy scheme has safeguarded almost 12,500 jobs—representing approximately 2·5 per cent. of employees in employment.

Mr. Watkinson: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that the scheme is imaginative and that it will provide some stability in a difficult industrial situation in Northern Ireland? Is he satisfied that all the firms that might qualify for the subsidy appreciate that they can obtain this assistance? Will he ensure that the scheme is as widely publicised as possible throughout the Province?

Mr. Concannon: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that 119 Northern Ireland concerns have received assistance. A total of 56 of those are in the clothing manufacturing industry, 21 are in the electronics and engineering industries, 15 in textiles and the remaining 27 in nine other industries. I am satisfied that the firms are aware of the scheme.

Terrorism

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied that the law as it stands is adequate to deal with terrorism.

Mr. Mason: In general, yes, Sir. We continue to study ways of improving our legal armoury but, as I have previously indicated to the House, we do not lack offences under existing law. More and more terrorists and their supporters are being brought before the courts, and it would be wrong to alter trial procedure in any way that would compromise basic standards of justice.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Minister accept that, although we agree in general that the Secretary of State has a formidable armoury of legislation, greater use could be made of certain aspects of legislation? Will he consider granting the RUC and Army officers powers, similar to those given to customs officers, to confiscate vehicles entering the United Kingdom by unapproved routes?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Member has asked about a point of detail that I am prepared to consider. However, I do not want to do anything that will undermine the present law in Northern Ireland. The RUC is now receiving a great deal of respect and esteem and it is proving to be very effective. Its record is good and its morale high. Above all, the law is fair and it is seen to be fair. I do not want to change the law in any way that would indicate to the Northern Ireland people that it is being bent.

Mr. Neave: I agree that good results have been obtained by the security forces in recent times, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are disappointed with his letter of 23rd February, rejecting our plan for a specific offence of terrorism? Is he further aware that in that letter he did not deal with the

Explosive Substances Act, which lays down a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment? Would it not be better if bombers, those who manage bomb factories and those who hide bombers were liable to a maximum penalty of life imprisonment? Bomb making is an act of terrorism with which the right hon. Gentleman did not deal in his letter.

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman and the House will be aware that the idea of creating an offence of terrorism has been examined several times and rejected. The prosecution would have to demonstrate that there was political intent. That would raise again the question of political prisoners. We have moved away from that. The ending of special category prisoners and detention has made that clear. Secondly, almost every act associated with terrorism is a crime and is therefore punishable. I do not see any reason why we should try to single out one act of terrorism, or present terrorism as an offence in its own right.

Mr. Neave: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with my specific point about the Explosive Substances Act as it relates to bombers? Does he appreciate that the maximum penalty is only 14 years' imprisonment and that judges complain bitterly because they cannot sentence people more heavily?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is an order pending which deals with the offence of hoax bombers. I shall take into consideration what he has said.

Mr. Bradford: Is the Secretary of State aware that his comments will afford little comfort to the wives and families of business men who are waiting to become the next targets? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is no substiute for stopping these reprobates before they murder business men and the security forces?

Mr. Mason: I am sure that the comments of the hon. Gentleman will have helped. They are typical of one of the few politicians in Northern Ireland who speak in that fashion but who will not give any help to the communities as a whole. Such comments provide propaganda aid for terrorists whom we are intent upon denouncing. As for the


prominent citizens whom the hon. Member has mentioned and who seem to be coming under attack—

Mr. Bradford: Seem to be?

Mr. Mason: Recently a number of people have come under attack. They are the soft targets. We have increased our surveillance, but it is difficult trying to cover everyone in the Province.

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many deaths and woundings have taken place in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorism during the first two months of 1977; and what were the equivalent figures in each of the last four years.

Mr. Mason: In the first two months of this year 26 people were killed and 245 injured in Northern Ireland as a result of violence. The comparable figures for the first two months of each of the previous four years are: in 1976, 74 killed and 479 injured; in 1975, 27 killed and 215 injured; in 1974, 34 killed and 348 injured; and in 1973, 54 killed and 397 injured.

Mr. Gow: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information, which shows that the numbers of deaths and injuries this year are significantly lower than in previous years, but will he enlarge upon the answer he gave a moment ago about the surveillance that is being given to members of the business community in Northern Ireland, particularly in view of the new wave of terror that is afflicting that section of the community?

Mr. Mason: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not give credence to the terrorists' campaign or help to publicise it. I have already said that prominent citizens in the community, not necessarily business men—the hon. Gentleman knows that it may be a member of the Orange Order, a magistrate, or a member of the UDR—seem to be the subject of attack by the Provisional IRA at the moment. I do not think that we should be complacent, but it is true that so far this year the numbers of deaths and woundings are generally lower than they have been in the previous four years. The House and the hon. Gentleman should be aware that in the first two months of this year 177 people were charged with terrorist

offences, including 12 charged with murder and 19 with attempted murder. The RUC is maintaining its good record of attrition.

Mr. Fitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that following the latest onslaught by the IRA all responsible political leaders in Northern Ireland have condemned the campaign vehemently, none more so than the spokesman for the party that I represent in this House, the SDLP? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that in recent days the leaders of my party have come out in the strongest possible terms against the IRA campaign that is now being waged? Does my right hon. Friend agree that in Northern Ireland, where the IRA is waging a campaign against the RUC, the SDLP, by calling into question some of the questionable activities of certain members of the RUC, as highlighted on British television, is in no way aligning itself with the IRA in its campaign? The SDLP, like the RUC, is trying to defeat terrorism.

Mr. Mason: I am interested and encouraged to hear my hon. Friend's comments. I hope that he, with his party, will give encouragement to his community to join the RUC as well as to praise its courage. I admire the courage and honesty of the outspoken speech by the deputy leader of the SDLP, who told the Provisional IRA that it was getting nowhere and the quicker it stopped its activities the better.

Mr. McCusker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a substantial number of the people mentioned in the statistics that he has given were my constituents? Is he also aware that so long as premeditated and cold-blooded killers can go around killing, almost with impunity, in all sections of Northern Ireland there will be the growing feeling that this can be combated only by reintroducing the death penalty? Will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to that?

Mr. Mason: No, I shall not give any further serious consideration to the reintroduction of the death penalty in Northern Ireland. As far as I am concerned it has been abolished for good. If the death penalty were reintroduced the first man in Northern Ireland to be hanged would be the greatest martyr to be created for years. The propaganda


value to the IRA and the Provisional IRA would be considerable. What is required of the hon. Gentleman and myself is for us to point out that this is a battle not only of propaganda but of wills, and that we have the will to win. If the people will back the RUC in its endeavours they will find out that it is beating the terrorists step by step. In 1976 934 persons were convicted, on indictment, of scheduled offences. It is by giving the RUC encouragement, standing by law and order, and being able to process people through the courts as common criminals that we shall beat the terrorists.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his strategy for the defeat of terrorism.

Mr. Roy Mason: I refer the hon. Member to what I said in the House on 17th December 1976 and 23rd February 1977.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Secretary of State aware that for months and years Opposition Members have pressed for the strengthening of the UDR—and in particular its full-time element—and for the closer co-ordination of all security forces? However, the time taken even to accept, let alone implement, such suggestions—and, indeed, the suggestion made again just now by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux)—indicates a grave lack of urgency. In particular, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the first instalment of five full-time UDR platoons has been formed?

Mr. Mason: The strengthening of the UDR is going ahead. In the recent debate I announced that 200 professional UDR personnel were being 'recruited, and we are having great success. The liaison that now exists between the RUC and the Army has improved considerably. There is intelligence sharing and this helps the RUC regional squads to effect arrests. The five platoons that are being developed are going ahead successfully.

Criminal Damage Compensation

Mr.Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will present his proposals for reform of the law relating to criminal damage compensation in the form of a Bill.

Mr. Concannon: No, Sir. Amendment to such law for Northern Ireland would appropriately be made by Order in Council under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974, and preparations for that are well advanced.

Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is against the interests of the Government, who want well-considered legislation, and against the public interest—in that the public require to be informed in detail of how the law is being changed—that these changes should be made by Order in Council? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to consult the Leader of the House to see how this can be done by proper legislation and without any greater use of the time of Ministers and the House than would be involved in the procedure by order?

Mr. Concannon: Since last summer the Government have provided improved arrangements for the consideration and debate of draft legislation. All suggestions for change will be carefully considered before the final draft of an order is laid. We are advanced on the road about which the right hon. Gentleman is speaking. I do not have to give him assurances. He knows that we shall be consulting him and his colleagues on this issue.

Northern Ireland Development Agency

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet representatives of the Northern Ireland Development Agency.

Mr. Coneannon: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans at present to meet the Northern Ireland Development Agency. I met the agency on 26th January 1977 and will have such further meetings or contacts with it as may be appropriate.

Mr. Canavan: Instead of the Government merely handing out millions of pounds of public money to multinational companies such as Regna, which pocketed the money and then closed down its factory in Northern Ireland, would it not be better to increase the Northern Ireland Development Agency budget in order to extend public enterprise through developing the Northern Ireland economy, thereby ensuring greater security of jobs for


the workers and possibly better community relations as well?

Mr. Concannon: We have increased the budget of the NIDA, but there is a principle of non-interference in the day-to-day operations of the agency. By statute it is an independent agency, and we should preserve that. However, with regard to my hon. Friend's first question about increasing the agency's budget, we have recently done that.

Rent and Rate Arrears

Mr. Craig: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in view of the fact that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has £6·5 million owing to it in respect of rent and rate arrears and may be unable properly to discharge its obligations by reason of the Government's decision to terminate the special arrangements for the collection of these debts by deductions from certain social welfare cash benefits, he will review the matter.

Mr. Carter: No, Sir. I am satisfied that the Housing Executive is able to discharge its functions fully in respect of the recovery of rent arrears. The recent modifications in the system to recover arrears from social security benefits were specifically designed to encourage tenants to make voluntary agreements with the Executive, to alleviate certain cases of undue hardship, and to improve the efficiency of the benefit allocation procedures.

Mr. Craig: Will the Minister say what ceiling he is prepared to allow the arrears of rents and rates to rise to? As I understand it, it has been increasing at a rate of about 25 per cent. a year. This hardly seems the time to diminish the capacity to collect arrears. Does the Minister appreciate that the BAB system was an incentive for people to enter into voluntary arrangements? The sum of £6½ million is a shocking amount to allow to fall into arrears.

Mr. Carter: In spite of the fact that it may be an incentive, arrears are continuing to increase. It is hoped, as a result of the introduction of the changes that we have made, that voluntary agreements will be made that will enable the rent arrears problem to be reduced. In the course of the next few months we

hope to obtain evidence showing how the new changes are working.

Mr. Fitt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the benefit allocation system did cause undue hardship to many hundreds and thousands of families in Northern Ireland? After a close scrutiny and review of that system, the Minister's noble Friend was forced to the conclusion that it would be better to arrive at a voluntary agreement other than that imposed by the Ministry. Does my hon. Friend also agree that there is so far no indication that people are throwing down the gauntlet to the Government and saying that they will not pay their rates and rents? Most people are inclined to come to a voluntary agreement with the authorities.

Mr. Carter: I must in all fairness say that at present insufficient numbers are coming forward to make voluntary agreements with the Housing Executive to pay off rent and rates arrears. As my hon. Friend says, it is our hope that the new procedures will encourage people to enter into voluntary agreements, so that this great burden of rent and rates arrears can gradually wither away.

Meat Industry Employment Scheme

Mr. Wm. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are his plans for the future of the Meat Industry Employment Scheme; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I am not yet in a position to make an announcement concerning the operation of the Meat Industry Employment Scheme after 31st March 1977. However, an examination of the complex issues involved is proceeding and I shall make a further announcement at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that this scheme was widely welcomed when introduced? It has been nearly 100 per cent. successful in the aims that it set out to achieve and it is necessary for the future of the meat industry in Northern Ireland that an early decision be taken.

Mr. Dunn: I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman says and I agree with the latter part of what he has said.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE

Mr. Ward: asked the Prime Minister if he will list the responsibilities that he has allocated to the Secretary of State for Trade.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): In the absence of my right hon. Friend in Washington, I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade is responsible for overseas trade policy, commercial relations and tariffs; the work of the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the British Overseas Trade Board; tourism; the hotel, film, newspaper, publishing and printing industries; the distributive and service trades; civil aviation, marine safety and shipping policy; companies affairs, including co-ordination of consultations on industrial democracy; insurance, the Insolvency Service and the Patent Office.

Mr. Ward: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. As investment and, therefore, job creation by British firms in the EEC have been running at about five times the level at which EEC firms have been investing in this country, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Secretary of State for Trade, in co-operation with other Departments, is doing enough to secure greater investment in this country? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to have this issue raised at the summit meeting on 7th and 8th May, with an EEC representative present?

Mr. Foot: I agree with the last suggestion made by my hon. Friend. Obviously, this is one of the matters that may be discussed at the summit meeting. But the other aspects of my hon. Friend's Question have constantly been pressed on representatives of the Government at meetings of the NEDC.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does the Leader of the House agree that since there is now a Secretary of State for Transport, aviation should be one of his responsibilities rather than the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade?

Mr. Foot: We have no proposals for the transfer of the arrangements now, but if there are such proposals I am sure that the Prime Minister will consider them.

Mr. John Garrett: My right hon. Friend's list omitted import policy and import substitution policy. Will he see to it that the Secretary of State for Trade takes these issues rather more seriously than he had done in the past?

Mr. Foot: Although these matters are not directly within my right hon. Friend's control, I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not take them lightly. They are, of course, of equal importance with exports.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is still the Government's policy and the policy of the Secretary of State for Trade to resist the daft and dangerous concept of import controls, generalised or selective?

Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend resists all daft and dangerous proposals.

Mr. Mellish: The list of duties read out by my right hon. Friend shows that the Secretary of State for Trade is a very busy little bee—[Interruption.]—spelt "bee". Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that we are getting value for money, and does he think that anyone is capable of doing all those things?

Mr. Foot: I am glad that my right hon. Friend was not introducing his Bermondsey language into the House in the earlier part of his question. If anyone is capable of doing all those jobs, I am sure that it is the Secretary of State for Trade.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Prime Minister what are his public engagements for 10th March.

Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
Today my right hon. Friend is in Washington for talks with President Carter and senior members of the Administration. In addition, my right hon. Friend will be lunching on Capitol Hill with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House of Representatives International Relations Committee. This evening, he will be the


guest of President Carter at a dinner in the White House.

Mr. McCrindle: When the Prime Minister returns will he be able to sort out the differences that appear to have arisen between the Government and Mr. Jack Jones about the Government's prices policy? Will he, in particular, be able to tell Mr. Jones that a statutory price freeze, which Mr. Jones seems to want, would lead to reduced profitability and increased unemployment, and that the gas price increases about which Mr. Jones is getting so excited flow directly from the Government's package of measures following the IMF borrowing?

Mr. Foot: Discussions have already occurred and continuing discussions will take place on the Government's prices policy between the Government and representatives of the General Council of the TUC and others who are concerned. We have not yet completed those discussions, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will return to this country long before they are completed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Before I call anyone else, I should point out that if an hon. Member argues a case when asking a supplementary question he may deprive another hon. Member of the chance of being called.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On behalf of the Prime Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman spend a few minutes of his busy day looking into the question of the Royal Navy helicopter pilots and their retirement gratuities? I cannot believe that the Government really intend to go back on their promise. Will the right hon. Gentleman see whether he can clear up this matter?

Mr. Foot: I give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the undertaking for which he asks. Of course we shall examine very carefully what he and others have said on that subject.

Sir David Renton: Could a message be sent to the Prime Minister today reminding him to express to President Carter the appreciation of the British people for the presence of the American Air Force in this country, helping us to defend this country and the rest of the free world?

Mr. Foot: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be able to convey to President Carter all that should be conveyed to him in the interests of this country as a whole. I am sure that he will be doing that throughout the whole day.

Mr. Prior: If the Prime Minister had been here today he would have seen that the Price Commission has said that the proposals for an increase in gas prices are not justified. Will the Lord President comment on that?

Mr. Foot: I always examine any statement by the Price Commission almost as carefully as I examine any statement by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). I should like to look at both before commenting.

CBI

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the CBI.

Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave him on 17th February.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the Government discuss with the CBI the rate at which the switch of resources from the public sector into manufacturing industries will take place? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is grave concern about this among Government supporters? What time scale does he envisage for the switch of resources into manufacturing industries that we have been promised?

Mr. Foot: This is a question that has been discussed between the Government, representatives of the CBI and others on NEDO over many months and, indeed, for a longer period than that. As my hon. Friend knows, this is a matter that it is easier to talk about than to achieve. It is not an easy transference to accomplish and it cannot be done solely by Government statements or consultations. But we shall be discussing it further in NEDO and other appropriate bodies.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Lord President indicate to the CBI whether he intends to seek the widest possible measure of agreement—to use his phrase


on devolution—on legislation for industrial democracy? If he does so intend, will he assure the CBI that there is a chance of getting the Bill through and, if he does not, that there is no chance at all?

Mr. Foot: I hope that we shall have the support of the Liberal Party on the Second Reading of the Industrial Democracy Bill, as we did in the case of devolution, and that Liberal Members will be even more persistent in sticking to their principles than they were on devolution.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the Lord President explain to the CBI why the Cabinet agreed to cut public expenditure last year on the basis of three assumptions, namely, the share of the GNP going to public expenditure, the increase in the domestic credit expansion, and the borrowing requirement—on all of which assumptions the Treasury now admits that the figures were wrong?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend has misconceived the undertakings and the understandings on which the measures were taken by the Government in December and at an earlier period. Those were some of the arguments that were deployed at the time, but the general case about them was put by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he mentioned them here. It is not the same case as that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon).

Mr. Michael Latham: Since the CBI is obviously interested in industrial harmony, will the right hon. Gentleman present it with and discuss with it a copy of the Underhill Report on the growing influence of Trotskyists in the governing party?

Mr. Foot: I do not think that that has anything to do with this Question, or with much else.

Mr. Dykes: Getting back to the subject of the CBI, does the Lord President agree with the suggestion made yesterday at Sheffield by the President of the CBI about 5 per cent. for the next round of wage increases and an additional 5 per cent. for tax cuts?

Mr. Foot: I do not think that it would be a sensible course to try to discuss

across the Floor of the House now the exact details of how we should reach the next pay agreement. It will be discussed in the House at a later stage. It is a matter of great importance, but I do not think that public speeches are the best way to start the discussions on it. I hope that we shall have an agreement not only with the TUC but with the CBI. It would not help to secure that agreement if, at the beginning, the Government made a full declaration about what they thought the final result should be.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Prime Minister if he remains satisfied with the progress of his Government towards the objectives of lower inflation, lower unemployment, higher production and less borrowing.

Mr. Foot: I have been asked to reply.
I have nothing to add to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Member on 18th January.

Mr. Tebbit: Does the Lord President think that the Prime Minister was living up to his usual standard of honesty at Question Time last Thursday when he refused to accept responsibility for the present level of unemployment but was anxious to claim credit for the improvement in the balance of payments?

Mr. Foot: To start with, the worst thing that I can say about the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is that I think he was living up to his usual standards of honesty. The next worst thing that I can say about him is that I do not think that he asked this Question to seek information on the subject. What the Prime Minister said was perfectly well understood by the House.

Mr. Loyden: Will my right hon. Friend bring to the attention of the Prime Minister the question of the level of unemployment generally and the specific unemployment position on Merseyside and in the North-East, where the shock wave of the unemployment figures resulting from the Plessey closures and redundancies and, in addition, this morning's announcement about further redundancies at English Electric is such


that there is a need for an urgent meeting of hon. Members representing constituencies there, who feel that the unemployment situation has reached a stage where they must say "Enough is enough"?

Mr. Foot: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Ministers will be prepared to meet hon. Members from the whole area. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Prime Minister acted immediately after the announcement of the proposed Plessey closures. Thanks to the operation of the Employment Protection Act, there is some time available for discussions to take place, and the committee to which my right hon. Friend referred a few days ago has already started its work.

Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the borrowing requirement is now under target and, if so, what the estimate for it may be?

Mr. Foot: I would require notice of that question, and I am sure a great many others would as well. I cannot give the right hon. Member the answer without his putting down a separate Question on the subject.

Mr. Peter Walker: When the Government obtained agreement on phase 2 it was forecast that, as a result, the rate of inflation would come down to 7·5 per cent. As it now looks like being 17·5 per cent., is it not time for the Government to explain to the TUC and the CBI the discrepancy between the two figures?

Mr. Foot: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's figure of 17·5 per cent. Certainly it is the case that the desired reduction in the rate of inflation, upon which we secured the agreement last year, has not been attained. Everyone knows that. The reasons why have often been stated from this Dispatch Box in these last few weeks and months. This is one of the matters raised in the discussions with the TUC. The Government have given to the TUC and to the House their view of it and have explained why we were not able to attain that figure. Despite that, however, it is of the highest importance for the country that a new pay agreement should be reached.

Mr. Lee: Before we can be entirely satisfied with progress on controlling in-

flation, is it not necessary that there should be no further integration of this country's agricultural policy with the lunatic CAP of the Common Market? Will my right hon. Friend say in what circumstances the Government would be prepared to use the veto, as this situation becomes worse and worse and more and more ludicrous as the months go by?

Mr. Foot: No member of the Government, no Member of the House, and no one in the country is satisfied with what has happened about the rate of inflation. We all know that it is much too high, and we want to get it down much quicker. One of the factors is the amount that we have to pay for food and other commodities. Those are matters that will be debated in the House next week, as I shall indicate when I announce the business for next week. There will be a full debate on those subjects. It has been evident over recent weeks that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food commands overwhelming support in the country for the stand that he has taken.

Mr. Whitelaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman now have a second go at trying to answer sensibly the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), instead of making a rude and unnecessary reply—a reply that was rude merely to hide his own embarrassment at being a member of a Government with a record that he would have so utterly deplored if he had not been a member?

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman is to make invocations for good manners, he might start with his hon. Friend the Member for Chingford.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not the point of order that you may expect, Mr. Speaker. I notice that the Lord President did not link Prime Minister's Question No. 9 with Question No. 1 I wonder whether there has been a change of practice, or whether it arises from some other factor not immediately obvious.

Mr. Speaker: The linking of Questions is a matter for Ministers and not for me.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Whitelaw: Will the Leader of the House kindly state the business for next week.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14TH MARCH—Debate on the Fifth Report from the Expenditure Committee in Session 1974–75 on "Redevelopment of the London Docklands" and on the Eighth Report in Session 1975–76 on "Public Expenditure on Chrysler UK Limited" and the relevant Government observations. 
Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill. 
TUESDAY 15TH MARCH—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. 
Afterwards, debate on the First Report in Session 1976–77 of the House of Commons (Services) Committee on "Printing of Hansard".
Motion on EEC Document R/960/76 on safety at work information.
WEDNESDAY 16TH MARCH—Motion on EEC Documents R/360/77, R/2469/76 and R/2673/76 on Community agriculture proposals.
Remaining stages of the Water Charges Equalisation Bill, and of the Nuclear Industry (Finance) Bill.
THURSDAY 17TH MARCH—Debate on the White Paper on "The Government's Expenditure Plans", Cmnd. No. 6721. 
Remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill.
FRIDAY 18TH MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 21ST MARCH—Second Reading of the Redundancy Rebates Bill.

Mr. Whitelaw: Is it not an extraordinary commentary on the right hon. Gentleman's conduct of the business of the House that the only positive proposal that he makes in his announcement is the reintroduction of a Bill for Second Reading that was defeated on a previous occasion? Is that not a unique achievement? May we know what has happened to the

direct labour Bill, which was widely heralded and which then did a remarkable and, from our point of view, very satisfactory disappearing act? Has it, as we hope, disappeared for good?

Mr. Foot: I note the right hon. Gentleman's anxieties about the direct labour Bill. I hope very much that we may be able to satisfy him on that and allay his anxieties.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Redundancy Rebates Bill. It is not the same Bill that was defeated on a previous occasion but it is equally necessary for the House to pass it.

Mr. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the business for Wednesday of next week? The right hon. Gentleman has rightly put forward an important debate on agricultural policy, but as that will take, I presume, until 10 o'clock, is it reasonable that it should be followed by two Bills on which a number of issues will be raised—namely, the Water Charges Equalisation Bill and the Nuclear Industry (Finance) Bill? Is it not unreasonable to take both Bills after 10 o'clock? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this matter again?

Mr. Foot: Let us see how we proceed. We want to get as much of the business through as possible. I do not believe that what is proposed will be inconvenient to the House. I agree that the debate on the Community agricultural proposals is of importance. I should like to see whether we can get through the two Bills as well but we shall consider the hon. Gentleman's representations.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I revert to the matter raised originally by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). Will my right hon. Friend make an arrangement some time next week for the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement on whether he is to agree to the 10 per cent. increase in gas charges that has been declared contrary to the Government's policy on the Price Code? In that statement, will my right hon. Friend arrange for details to be given why the chairman of the North Thames Gas Board issued hundreds of letters at a cost of thousands of pounds extolling his own virtues and announcing his retirement from office in March while refusing to give details either to the Minister or to


Members of Parliament of how much money was wasted on this stupid escapade at the expense of those who will have the price of their gas increased?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend's first point arises from the announcement of Government measures that was made shortly before Christmas. I doubt very much whether a new statement can be made in the coming week, but I shall consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
I shall look into the matters raised by my hon. Friend in his second point. I cannot comment upon those matters without examining them in detail.

Mr. Jasper More: Last week the Lord President was good enough to say that he would try to get a Treasury Minister to make a statement on the recent report of the Inter-departmental Committee on Forestry. As I do not think we had that statement last week, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for it to be made next week?

Mr. Foot: I hope that we shall not have a continuous performance with the hon. Gentleman. However, I shall take up the matter with my right hon. Friend to ascertain what further can be done.

Mr. Jay: Will my right hon. Friend say what motion will be before the House on Wednesday's debate on EEC agricultural proposals? Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the proposals coming forward are so objectionable that the House may well wish to vote against them?

Mr. Foot: I hope that when my right hon. Friend examines the motion he will accept that it is a fair way to treat the matter. My right hon. Friend and others will be able to raise all the other questions that they wish to put in the debate. I hope that having a debate in this manner will be of assistance to the House generally.

Sir Nigel Fisher: Following what was for many of us the welcome collapse of the Scotland and Wales Bill, it appears that the right hon. Gentleman has nothing important to bring before the House of Commons. In view of that, will he suggest a date upon which the White Paper on direct elections to the European Parliament will be brought forward and sub-

sequently the Bill, which has been so long and reprehensibly delayed?

Mr. Foot: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the dates for which he asks for the direct elections Bill. It is most unwise for the hon. Gentleman to give the impression that what we are discussing next week is in any way unimportant business. The discussion on the Community agricultural proposals is not unimportant business. The discussion on the Government's expenditure plans, which obviously have to be provided for in any Government's timetable, is not unimportant business. The discussion on the amendments to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill cannot be entirely dismissed as a subject on which the House has shown no interest in the past. If the hon. Gentleman studies the business more carefully, he will find that there is plenty to keep him busy.

Mr. Mellish: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to say anything more about the debate to take place on the development of London dockland? I put it on record that we are grateful that he has found Government time for the debate. but is the Minister to make a statement or are we to have another of those discussions when we all say what we think we want to say and nothing happens? Will anything be said?

Mr. Foot: Something usually happens if my right hon. Friend makes a speech. I dare say that he will catch the eye of the Chair when the debate takes place. It would be a most deplorable debate on dockland if that were not the case. As I have said, the relevant Government observations on these matters which have already been made will be part of the discussions. I have no doubt that there will be a Government statement on the matter, too. As my right hon. Friend is fully aware, there are members of the Government who have a special interest in what is happening in dockland.

Mr. Raison: Will the House of Commons have any say in the formulation of the next stage of the incomes policy or will it once again be the subject of a private deal between the Government and the TUC?

Mr. Foot: It will be a matter in which the House can take a continuous interest.


I have no doubt that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will contribute to the debate on the Budget. I believe that it is a complete misconception to suggest that the House of Commons has been unable to influence these matters in the past. Certainly it will be able to influence these matters in the forthcoming weeks and months.

Mr. Torney: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion No. 201, in my name and the names of over 100 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, drawing attention to the scandal of the sale of EEC butter at heavily subsidised rates to Russia?
[That, in view of the heavily subsidised European countries, whilst the price in Great Britain remains very high, this House declares its complete lack of confidence in the Common Agricultural Policy as a means of regulating Great Britain's food supplies, and calls upon the Government to take immediate steps to transform the present Common Agricultural Policy.]

Mr. Arthur Lewis: And to the Arabs.

Mr. Torney: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the general scandal of the common agricultural policy next week?

Mr. Foot: Some of these matters will obviously be relevant in the debate next Wednesday. Obviously these questions will enter into the debate. The House and country are showing an ever greater interest in these matters. I think that many of us who have been interested in these questions welcome that interest, even though we do not welcome the decisions which have been taken.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the welcome dearth of Government legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman announce that the Easter Recess will be of a proper duration?

Mr. Foot: I give the hon. Gentleman the absolute undertaking that the Easter Recess will be of a proper duration, but I ask him to await the exact details.

Mr. George Cunningham: With regard to the public expenditure blue books, should we not be having a two-day debate on that important subject? Since Supply Days are given to the Opposition for the

scrutiny of public expenditure, will the Lord President prevail upon them to make one of their days available so that we can have a full debate on the matter?

Mr. Foot: I should be willing to have a two-day debate on that subject on the conditions postulated by my hon. Friend. However, he might have even greater influence with the Opposition Front Bench than I have.

Mr. Burden: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Early-Day Motion No. 217, which has been signed by over 100 of my right hon. and hon. Friends?
[That this House believes that any attempt by Her Majesty's Government to disclaim the obligations to pay the gratuities promised on retirement to Royal Air Force and Fleet Air Arm air crew who were enlisted on short-service commissions, would be a flagrant breach of contract and grossly dishonest; and calls upon the Minister of Defence either to confirm immediately that the Government has every intention of honouring the undertakings given to these men, or failing this to resign his office forthwith.]
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not consider that I am being rude or objectionable about his reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) on the subject of gratuities for men serving in the Royal Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm, when they finish their terms of service, which is very much in question. Will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence comes to the House and makes it clear that the Government have no intention whatsoever of abrogating their obligation to pay those men gratuities that were laid down?

Mr. Foot: I fully understand from the representations that have been made that there is great public concern about that matter. No final decision has yet been taken. The matter is still under review in the light of pensions legislation.
Subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, this issue could he raised in the forthcoming defence debate, to which I expect to refer in the Business Statement next week. There are other ways in which hon. Members can raise this issue. As I indicated, no final decision has yet been taken.

Mr. Canavan: May we have a debate on Early-Day Motion No. 212?
[That this House calls upon the Right honourable Lady the Leader of the Opposition to dismiss the honourable Member for Glasgow, Cathcart from his position as Opposition spokesman for Scotland, because a person who is a Parliamentary adviser to Globtik Tankers Ltd., a company which exploits underpaid Filipino seamen and resorts to piracy and threats of violence is not qualified to speak for the interests of Scotland.]
As the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland is a paid lackey of Globtik Tankers Ltd., of which the Shadow Secretary of State for Wales is a director, would it not be appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to dismiss from her Shadow Cabinet such shady characters who are making a living out of exploitation?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is not permitted to call hon. Members of this House shady characters. [HON. MEMBERS: "He said ' Shadow' ".] In that case, I withdraw.

Mr. Canavan: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. What I meant to say was that they appear to have shadowy connections with a company which exploits workers and indulges in thuggery and violence.

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) to call the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland a paid lackey of an outside interest?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have said before that I strongly deprecate personal attacks and terms of abuse. It depends what the hon. Gentleman means by "paid lackey" but I do not take it as a complimentary term. I hope that hon. Members will try to avoid being pulled up on the ground of being abusive.

Mr. Foot: I certainly deprecate the use of the term paid "or" "unpaid lackeys". I am sure that all of us would deprecate that. I think that the best and most fruitful way for this matter to be discussed would be for the Opposition to devote part of a Supply Day to discuss that motion. After all, the Opposition have a double interest in the matter. Not only the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cath-

cart (Mr. Taylor) but also the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) have a special interest in the matter. Perhaps those two hon. Gentlemen could persuade the Opposition to have a partial Supply Day to discuss the motion.

Mr. Peter Mills: In view of the apparent vacuum in which we find ourselves and the difficulty of the Government in finding subjects for debate in this House, will the Leader of the House try to clear the backlog of Statutory Instruments from the Scrutiny Committee on European Secondary Legislation, because they are stacking up very high? They would provide most interesting debates in this House.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have got important business to deal with next week. Of course there is important business, but we shall also seek to deal with other business. We are so pressed for business that there has not been time available for Supply Days on the scale that the Opposition would have wished. I am not suggesting that a debate on the "Globtik Venus" should take place next week, but it could perhaps be taken a little later.

Mr. Greville Janner: When does my right hon. Friend consider that the Government are likely to be in a position to make a statement about the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and who may or may not be attending? Is it likely to be before or after the conference is held?

Mr. Foot: My right hon Friend the Prime Minister has dealt with this question previously and he will deal with it again when he returns from Washington before the Commonwealth Conference takes place.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is an important statement to follow. I shall allow two more questions from each side of the House.

Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that the other day I had a Question down to the Secretary of State for Defence about tax-free gratuities for short-service commissions and that, in reply, my right hon. Friend said that the matter was under review. In order to give him an opportunity of


saying what he wants to do about it, I have put down another Question for Tuesday 22nd March, by which time I hope that my right hon. Friend will have come to a satisfactory conclusion without necessarily being subjected to pressure from the Opposition.

Mr. Foot: I hope that all my right hon. Friends take full note of Questions put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) whether or not he gives them oral indications about them, as he has today, because it is wise for every Minister to understand what my hon. Friend is up to.

Mr. Tebbit: As the direct labour Bill seems unlikely to receive Royal Assent before 1st April, does the Leader of the House intend to introduce the necessary orders to extend the powers of certain local authorities before that time as they expire on 1st April?

Mr. Foot: There are such problems. It is a great pleasure and delight, for the first time in our common membership of this House, for me to be able to say that I think the hon. Gentleman is probably right that the Bill will not receive Royal Assent before 1st April.

Mr. John Ellis: In regard to the debate on Tuesday on the Services Committee Report and the arrangements for printing of Hansard, can my right hon. Friend give us any further information now or let us have it before the debate, so that we can go into the debate better prepared?

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. We are having the debate next week and I know that many hon. Members have asked questions on the matter. I hope that before the debate next week they will be able to read Hansard of yesterday, which includes an extensive Written Answer from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, on the matter, which I think will help the House and give the reasons for this recommendation by the Services Committee. Hon Members will find the Answer at columns 549to 551.

Mr. Goodhart: Now that the Government appear to have more time available, would the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing the seat belt legislation—

[Hon. Members: "No."]—which made considerable progress in the last Session and which the Secretary of State for Transport estimated would save 50 lives a week?

Mr. Foot: I do not dismiss the importance of the Bill because I have listened to many of the debates on it. However, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard just now, there are some difficulties in getting the Bill through which do not arise exclusively from the actions of hon. Members on this side.

WILLIAM THOMAS HUGHES

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Merlyn Rees, statement.

Mr. Jim Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to an article in today's Daily Express by Mr. David Buchan, which apparently has leaked some of the contents of the report upon which the Home Secretary is about to make a statement? I submit to you, first, that this is unfair and insensitive to those directly involved in the inquiry who will still not yet have seen a copy of the report. I would suggest, second, that it is unfair to those other journalists who also received a copy of the report yesterday but who have kept their word and not leaked its contents. Third, and most important, I suggest that this action shows grave contempt of this House, since we have not yet heard the Home Secretary's statement and received a copy of the report itself only an hour or so ago.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Further to the point of order. I certainly deplore any abuse of the system whereby the Press are given advance copies of statements. There has been an abuse, not only in publishing but because members of the Prison Officers Association have been telephoned with requests for copies. This is a sensitive report. I must look at the methods I use in my Department because this has caused trouble for people who should not have been bothered in this way.

Mr. Speaker: The House will have heard the Home Secretary's statement. So far as I am concerned, it is a matter for the Minister unless the hon. Member is raising it as a question of privilege. If


it is a point of order, I must say that the House must be content with the Minister's reply.

Mr. Jim Marshall: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Am I in a position to ask you to look into this question and to see whether it is a question of privilege?

Mr. Speaker: Of course, any hon. Member is free to ask me to look at a question of privilege, but I do not seek to encourage it. I would say that the statement just made by the Secretary of State is probably more helpful than anything that I could say tomorrow morning on this question.

Mr. Rees: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a further statement following up the one I made on 17th January about the case of William Thomas Hughes.
The report of the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service's inquiry into the security arrangements at Leicester Prison and for the escort of prisoners to courts is published today. It describes the information available to the prison staff both within the prison service about Hughes' behaviour in prison custody, including his nine earlier journeys to court, and from the courts and the police. It concludes that this information was not such as would have required him to be treated as a Category A prisoner for whom the highest security precautions would be necessary or whose escort in a hired vehicle would be inappropriate.
The report finds that there was a failure to pursue the search for the knife which was reported missing from the prison kitchen in December 1976 and to make the subsequent information relating to its loss available to the staff as a whole. This was the knife with which Hughes subsequently inflicted serious injuries on the escorting officers.
The report also includes the Chief Inspector's recommendations aimed at reducing the risk of prisoners being able to leave prison with unauthorised articles in their possession. These fall into two groups–17 recommendations for immediate action and eight matters recommended for further review. I have accepted all the recommendations for immediate action, most of which relate

to the stricter observance of the existing procedures. The matters recommended for further review are being given full and careful consideration. But, as the report points out, apart from the financial and staffing implications, a number of them would have serious consequences both for the treatment of prisoners, many of them unconvicted, and for the relationships between staff and prisoners.
I have examined whether anything in this report calls for the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. It suggests that there were errors of judgment but does not in my view disclose grounds for considering disciplinary action: these were failures of the system rather than of particular individuals.
I now turn to the police operations following Hughes' escape, on which I have received a report from the Chief Constable of Derbyshire.
Hughes' escape on 12th January was notified to the police very quickly, and the taxi in which he made his escape good was found abandoned within an hour of his escape. No trace could be found of the direction he had then taken, or indeed of whether he had picked up another car or was on foot. The police had, however, a number of reasons for believing that he would make for Lancashire. The search was therefore most intensive in that direction; in other directions, including that which Hughes in fact took, it concentrated on isolated premises and outbuildings—the sort of buildings in which a fugitive might be expected to take shelter and hope to escape notice. It continued throughout 12th and 13th January and into 14th January, despite worsening weather conditions which developed by 13th January into a blizzard and created considerable problems for the police quite apart from the search.
On average over 200 officers were deployed in the search on each day, and over 400 searches of premises were made. The search extended to farm buildings in the Eastmoor area, and to the outbuildings of the public house; Pottery Cottages were not searched or visited, but then to all outward appearances the cottages were occupied by their usual residents and life was continuing normally. It was not until the morning of 14th January that Hughes' presence there was reported by Mrs. Moran


through a neighbour. Then came the chase which ended in Hughes' death.
The deaths of Mrs. Moran's parents, husband and daughter and of Hughes are still the subject of the coroner's inquiry, and I should not therefore comment on those aspects of the matter further.
It has been my intention from the outset to give the House as full an account as possible of the facts about how this tragic case came to happen. Publication of the report by the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service gives effect to this intention, but also, by the thoroughness of its analysis and the width of its recommendations, provides a number of lessons for staff at all levels at Leicester Prison, at other establishments, at regions and at the Home Office. The necessary instructions to give effect to the immediate recommendations are being issued at once.

Mr. Whitelaw: Following the point made by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), I would particularly thank the Home Secretary for his arrangements for publishing this report earlier than has frequently been done on other occasions so that hon. Members in all parts of the House have had a chance to read it. That was very helpful and I am only sorry that it should have led to some of the difficulties which have been outlined.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a quick reading of the report certainly confirms that the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service has produced a full and frank report, for which the House is indebted to him? Would he convey to the Chief Inspector the thanks of the House for having done so in such a comprehensive manner? The right hon. Gentleman has certainly carried out his undertaking that there would be a full statement of the whole position.
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the House and the public are very concerned about the subsequent police operations? The right hon. Gentleman has given as full a summary as it is proper for him to give pending the coroner's inquiry. But after that inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing the Chief Constable's report because lessons may be learned from it?
In regard to the report from the prison, we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's

intention to implement the recommendations for immediate action. In considering the review by others, which I accept may be far more wide-ranging, will the Home Secretary accept that, although many of us would appreciate the need for strict searches on security grounds, if this were introduced generally it would have far-reaching implications in the prison service?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I will convey his thanks, and indeed the thanks of the House, to the Chief Inspector. This is a first reading of the report, and I believe that that further examination of the report will show that it adopts a comprehensive rather than a narrow approach. I hope that everybody will feel that it gives a broad picture.
The police report is a somewhat different matter. I gave no undertaking on that score, and nobody has suggested that I should do so. I have given the House the important aspects of the report, there are details in it which should not be published. I assure the House that the convention is that police reports are not published. I thought that I would answer the questions that people were asking on this matter.
I hope that the report will be read carefully in regard to the question of strip-searching and in other ways. I have give much thought to this matter. Strip-searching, if carried out to a high degree, will radically alter many aspects in the prisons. There are many problems involved. I asked my advisers about this man and I said, "Is it possible that such a man is not Category A?", and they said firmly "No". They said "Unfortunately, there are a large number of such people in our prisons". When hon. Members examine the details of this man's career, they will see that it throws light on aspects of prison discipline which I had not realised.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I agree with what has been said about the comprehensive nature of the report, which I believe is first class. I welcome the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that no disciplinary proceedings will be taken against individuals at Leicester Prison, because it is clear that this was a failure of the system rather than the fault of individuals. However, the report


raises a number of extremely disturbing matters, particularly the failure at Leicester Prison of communication between the management and the main body of prison officers there, as well as the non-observance of routine standard prison department procedure. Have steps been taken to rectify this position at Leicester Prison, and have instructions been sent to all other penal institutions in England and Wales reminding them of their duties under prison regulations?

Mr. Rees: In regard to disciplinary procedures, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) keeps closely in touch with the situation at Leicester Prison and he knows the prison officers there. Therefore, I understand why he takes a keen interest in this subject. I think that this was the right decision, and when the House reads the report I believe that hon. Members will agree with me. I repeat that there are disturbing aspects in the system as a whole. We believe that there have been failures of communication, and in other ways. A circular will be issued on the subject. I waited until the report was published because it provides a general peg for discussion on the matter into which the circular will fit, and the matter will be seen in perspective.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I thank the Home Secretary for bringing this report to the House so quickly and congratulate the Chief Inspector on his full and comprehensive report.
May I refer to one matter which has not been dealt with so far in supplementary questions? I am concerned about the transport of what I can only describe as dangerous prisoners. Although the sentence served by the late Mr. Hughes did not relate to any violent crime on his record, we must remember that at least four or five of the offences of which he was convicted involved wounding, assault and bodily harm—clearly indicating that he was of a violent disposition.
Will the Home Secretary lay down that in future when a prisoner with such a history is being transported from prison to court, or from court to prison, or from prison to prison, he will be transported

not in a hired vehicle, but in a police vehicle or special Prison Department vehicle which is secure? I do not need to remind the House that four people have lost their lives in this incident and that the life of Mrs. Gill Moran is probably blighted for ever. Is it not worth while for the safety of law-abiding citizens that such prisoners should be transported in secure vehicles?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening comments. He said that the fact that people had died in this incident should be uppermost in our minds. I hope that he will examine recommendation No. 22 on page 25 of the report. He will there see the view of the Chief Inspector. I have closely examined this matter in recent weeks. It is a sad commentary on our society that somebody such as this man Hughes is typical rather than unusual. The difficult question arises whether such a person should be accorded special treatment when taken to the courts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will carefully examine recommendation No. 22 on this point. It is a most important matter and I have firm views about the safety of the public, which of course must be supreme. I am examining the matter in that context.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that prior publication of such a report arises frequently in these matters and makes it difficult for the House to question Ministers carefully about the contents of reports which we are given only an hour or so before the statement is made? Where reports are embargoed for the Press, could not a similar system be adopted for hon. Members so that we may be given notice of these matters?
On the details of the report will my right hon. Friend be careful to keep the balance between dangerous and non-dangerous prisoners? If all prisoners were treated as coming within Category A, the situation in prison would be intolerable, not only for prisoners but for officers. There is a real danger of overreacting to the situation, although clearly this was a case of human error and the system itself probably would have been satisfactory if it had been applied.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Four people are dead.

Mr. Rees: On the subject of prior issue of reports, I have long wondered how to give information in a way that would facilitate discussion. I have tried to assist in a number of small ways. In general, the Press plays fair, and it is important that that should be said, but if there were some way in which hon. Members could be given earlier copies of such reports, I should be prepared to play my part, and perhaps the matter could be discussed. It would make discussion of these matters easier.
There is a balance to be struck between the two aims. I appear constantly to be making that statement in this House. Prisoners could not all be given Category A status, because we know what that would mean in the prisons and it would lead to an impossible situation. It is important that the procedures should be followed. This is cold comfort to Mrs. Moran and to others who have suffered, but if it forces me to think carefully about the procedures, that can only be helpful for the future.

Mr. Rost: Does not the Home Secretary realise that public anxiety in Derbyshire and elsewhere will not be fully laid at rest unless assurances are given? Should he not make the Chief Constable's report public, or at least comment upon it and express his opinion whether he is satisfied with its recommendations?

Mr. Rees: I thought that I had given the impression that I was perfectly satisfied with the report. If I had felt that there were real worries to be assuaged, or if I were concerned about the arrangements, I would have published the report. When I examined the matter earlier in the week, I thought that there was no need to publish it. I have given the House the important points.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I intend to call the four hon. Members who have already stood up. I want not only to save frustration but to ask them to be as brief as possible.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Minister aware that I and my colleagues wish to be associated with the compliments that have been made to Chief Inspector Fowler on the lucidity of his report and that we congratulate the Home Secretary on accepting the recommendations?
On the matter of strip-searching, will the Home Secretary say whether he has considered using electronic devices such as those that are used on passengers going through airports? Might that be of help?
Does the Home Secretary also appreciate the reference made in the report by the Governor of Leicester Prison about the imposition of too strict budgetary controls, and is he aware that this is a matter that is felt strongly throughout the prison service? It is thought that there is undermanning at too many important points, particularly during dining and recreation.
What will be done about the fact that there are too many remands in custody? That is a point that comes out of the report. Will the Home Secretary look at the recommendations of the Mountbatten Report about the whole future of high security wings in prisons?

Mr. Rees: I am not sure that the last point is particularly relevant to this case but I shall certainly look at the report and perhaps the hon. Member and I could have a word about it. As to budgetary control, I shall look at that. I am following the matter up but public expenditure cuts do not, as has been suggested, lead to such problems as this.
There may be something in the idea of electronic devices. I do not know whether they would be appropriate to prisons but I shall look into that. I am grateful to the Liberal Party spokesman for referring to the Chief Inspector. It was galling that one of the Press reports gave him a nickname that he does not possess but which is possessed by a criminal. That rubs salt into the wound.

Mr. Crowther: The Home Secretary will correct me if I am misinterpreting his statement, but does he really expect the public to accept that it was merely an error of judgment rather than gross negligence that allowed a man with such a record of violence to be in possession of a knife while in custody, whatever the niceties of procedure may be?

Mr. Rees: I have made my points about disciplinary charges and the failure of the system and I am not justifying that failure. My hon. Friend has trade union experience, and he will appreciate that if the matter were to go further than


this everyone involved would have a right to the investigation being started again because evidence given in this way could not be held as evidence in a disciplinary charge. I do not think that that should happen. If my hon. Friend looks at the report again I am sure that at the end of the day he will agree with me that it would be wrong to pick out one or two people. It was a system that was to blame rather than an individual.

Mr. Whitehead: Documentation is discussed in the report in great detail. Does the Minister agree that this is not just a matter of speeding up the approval of these documents? Should not his Department be looking at the need to revise them, particularly Form 293? If Form 293 can describe Hughes, in terms of the prison service, as "A run of the mill prisoner" there is something seriously wrong.
Is the Home Secretary aware that public feeling in Derbyshire was outraged and is not yet satisfied or assuaged on the matter of the search. I can see that there are good reasons why parts of the Chief Constable's report cannot be published in any form, but will the Home Secretary publish the part that refers to the search and the three days following the escape of Hughes, because many people do not believe that it was possible to be certain that all was well at Pottery Cottage by looking at the outside of the house?

Mr. Rees: If my hon. Friend looks at what I have said about the publication of the full report I think he will agree that its publication would not add much to the discussion. I have said what the judgment is on what happened. There is no other information to give, and I have given all the information that I think is necessary. But I shall certainly reconsider the matter because I have an open mind.
As to Form 293, I was worried when I saw what was put on it. But "run of the mill" means that there are a lot of people like Hughes in prison. This is not unusual. I think what my hon. Friend is getting at is the way in which a form is filled in or crossed out because that can lead to an acceptance that would not occur if the form was completed in a different fashion.
Some people come out of prison on parole, or after serving their proper sentences, when everybody knows that they will be back soon having committed another assault. That is a factor in society.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I welcome and appreciate the publication of the report and the way in which the Home Secretary has dealt with the matter. Does my right hon. Friend accept that on the day that the knife was found to be missing the prison was grossly overcrowded—almost 100 per cent. overcrowded—and the prison officers were understaffed? Is it not true that that applies not just to Leicester but to prisons throughout the country? Does the Home Secretary agree that unless he takes action to reduce the prison population and to put back the public expenditure cuts that have affected the prison officers, we are likely to have more instances of this kind in future and far more disturbances in prisons?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments because I know what he feels about prisons. Hon. Members may have noticed that I have allowed films to be taken inside prisons. I want to do all I can, within reason, to allow discussions on what goes on in prisons. There is also the overcrowding problem. I have been considering what we may be able to do in this respect. Overcrowding is a problem, but I think that my hon. Friend, on reading the report, will see that there was more to this matter than overcrowding or public expenditure.

BILL PRESENTED

REDUNDANCY REBATES

Mr. Secretary Booth, supported by Mr. Secretary Mason, Mr. Robert Sheldon, Mr. J. D. Concannon, Mr. Harold Walker, and Mr. John Golding, presented a Bill to make provision for varying the amounts of rebates payable under section 30 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 and section 40 of the Contracts of Employment and Redundancy Payments Act (Northern Ireland) 1965: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Compensation for Smelter Deficits Order 1977) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.— [Mr. Coleman.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (APPROPRIATION)

4.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I beg to move,
That the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.
This order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 and is the first this year of the annual presentation of orders which make available the funds required for the services of the eight Northern Ireland Departments.
The order serves to appropriate not only the published Spring and Further Spring Supplementary Estimates for 1976–77 but the sums required on account for 1977–78 which will keep Northern Ireland Departments in funds until after the 1977–78 main Estimates are published, when Parliament will be asked to approve appropriation of the balance of the funds required.
I deal first with the Spring and Further Spring Supplementary Estimates by which total additional provision of £48·4 million is sought. This sum, together with main Estimates provision of £1,038·5 million approved by the House in July and Autumn Supplementary Estimates provision of £60·8 million approved in December, brings the total sought for 1976–77 to £1,147·7 million. This sum is within both the public expenditure allocations and the cash limits for Northern Ireland Departments. Total provision for 1975–76 amounted to £1,028·4 million.
The bulk of the £48·4 million now sought is required to meet pay awards and increased costs. Any real increases in public expenditure brought about by policy decisions have been more than offset by real savings elsewhere. The services for which these extra funds are required are set out in Part I of the schedule to the order; more detailed information can be found in the two Supplementary Estimates volumes, copies of which are available in the Library.
I now draw attention to the more important elements of real expenditure. There are two matters which I wish to mention at the outset. The first is the


provision for price restraint. Three million pounds is needed for payments to Northern Ireland gas and electricity undertakings. Two million pounds of this is for payments in respect of revenue loss due to compliance with the national price limitation policy, and £1 million for interest charges on the revenue loss for the period for which compensation amounts are outstanding. The NIES deficit for price restraint purposes for 1975–76 has been agreed on the basis of audited accounts at £24·6 million, which is higher by £2·6 million than that estimated six months previously. Total revenue account losses incurred by the various gas undertakings are up from a forecast £2·5 million to a probable £3·5 million.
The second matter is a provision for housing. The present level of public expenditure provision for housing in Northern Ireland will permit spending in Belfast on new building, redevelopment, rehabilitation and improvement and support for housing associations at an annual average rate in excess of £25 million. This rate of spending permits the commitment of around £130 million over the next five years.
Right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that it will be a formidable task to ensure the completion of such a major programme, but it is the wish of the Government to stimulate rapid progress. To the extent that this will demand additional resources for Belfast by means of a shift within the overall expenditure provision for housing in Northern Ireland, it can be achieved without detriment to the interests of those in housing need in other parts of the Province by a revision of new construction programmes to reflect the latest population assumptions, particularly within the Belfast region.
The largest part of the increase in real expenditure is the £6·5 million required to meet payments under the Meat Industry Employment Scheme. These schemes exist to ameliorate the worst effects of the green pound differential by maintaining throughput in Northern Ireland meat plants and were reintroduced when the Irish Republic's green pound was devalued further in October 1976. An additional £2 million is required to meet the cost of completing payments under the Special Land Improvement Scheme. The closing date

for receipt of claims for payment under this scheme was 30th September 1976, the scheme having actually terminated in July 1975. An additional £2·1 million is sought to pay for new construction and maintenance work on roads and bridges.
Under the system of cash limits currently in operation, total voted provision for services subject to cash limits may not exceed the Vote expenditure element of the Northern Ireland cash limit, which for 1976–77 stands a £536·3 million. The cash-limited portion of total estimated expenditure for 1976–77 is £19 million within this figure at £517·3 million.
I turn now to the sums required on account for 1977–78. These have been calculated on the same basis as that used for United Kingdom Departments—that is to say, they represent with minor exceptions 45 per cent. of the total Estimates for the current financial year. The total sum sought on account is £502·6 million. Details are provided in Part II of the schedule to the order.
These are the main features of the order to which I wish to draw attention. I commend the order to the House. I shall of course, try to answer any questions that right hon. hon. Members may wish to raise in the debate, and if for any reason I am unable to do so I shall note the points and write to the hon, Members concerned.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: I am sure that the House would like me to thank the Under-Secretary for the way in which he has introduced the order. We agree that there is a need for this additional money for the purposes that he has described.
When we debated the Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, on 9th December, I raised a number of questions with the Under-Secretary which I think arise on this order as well with regard to individual classes. He replied to me on 14th February. I shall come to that shortly. I should like to make one or two general observations arising out of what the Under-Secretary said about the economic situation in Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to industrial investment, because this arises from what he said about the amount being made available.
There is, of course, very welcome and encouraging news about private investment as well in Northern Ireland. Synthetic Industries Incorporated, for example, has announced its intention to invest £5 million in a factory at Newry, and Gallaghers is investing an additional £8 million. I understand that the Post Office is spending £58 million on expanding and modernising its telephone service in Ulster. That is good news. Firms such as Berkshire International, Hughes Tool Company, Goodyear, the Ford Motor Company and Courtaulds have also announced important expansions. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us a bit more about that. The Opposition are anxious, as are other hon. Members on both sides of the House, to encourage private investment as well as to spend public money for the special cases of Northern Ireland
.
The Under-Secretary mentioned Class V, relating to housing. Certainly this money will he required in view of the rate of inflation in house prices in Ulster. According to the Belfast Telegraph of, I think, 15th October, house prices in Ulster have leapt by 23·7 per cent., as compared with the average in the rest of the United Kingdom of 9·6 per cent There is no doubt that Northern Ireland has been more badly hit by inflation than any other part of the United Kingdom Perhaps the Under-Secretary would comment on that matter.
Certainly we fully understand what the Under-Secretary had to say about that part of the order relating to housing construction and house prices. It certainly seems to us—I shall come to a point about industrial investment shortly—that Northern Ireland does not present quite as depressing a picture as it did in the autumn of last year, though the picture is still very mixed and there are a number of important firms that are in difficulties. None the less, we welcome the Government's special treatment of Northern Ireland and congratulate the Secretary of State on having instilled a sense of urgency in dealing with these problems.
However, there are two points that I raised in the last debate and to which the hon. Gentleman replied on 14th February. The first is this. In spite of what has been said, we have no indication of the Government's thinking on the

Quigley Report, especially relating to the costs of energy in Northern Ireland.
The costs of energy are a very serious problem there. There seems to be a totally inexplicable delay in making public the findings of the Shepherd Report on the electricity industry and in pressing forward the study on the gas industry in Northern Ireland. Will the Under-Secretary say something about those matters? They are urgent. The latter study includes making available natural gas in Northern Ireland. What is the position there? Is it not fundamental to the problems of the gas industry in the Province that this subject should be studied and that there should be some statement about it?
Referring more specifically to the hon. Gentleman's letter, with regard to ship building—this is Part II, Class II(1)—I asked him on 9th December about diversification in Harland and Wolff. He told me on 14th February,
I can add little to what was said in reply to your question about diversification at Harland and Wolff. Scope for diversification is limited".
He pointed out the difficulty which I fully understand, of specialised equipment and traditional skills in the shipyard.
He said:
I can assure you that several possible lines of activity are being actively explored.
I pointed out from this Bench on 9th December that there were very good equipment and good engineering shops available at Harland and Wolff and that I thought that the time had come to find new forms of diversification for this firm. Is anything being done about this? Would the hon. Gentleman make a further statement at the end of the debate?
The other point I made about Harland and Wolff was one in which I had taken an interest for a long time. It is the possibility of a defence contract for the firm. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that he replied to me in this vein:
The Ministry of Defence is well aware of the capability and desire of Harland and Wolff to undertake defence contracts. There is unfortunately little prospect of naval work of any magnitude coming forward and I cannot therefore hold out much hope of the shipyard benefiting".
We have already debated the Government's policy on defence at some length and we possibly can imagine some of


the reasons why there may be difficulties in providing defence work as a result of their policies. Surely they can give priority to Harland and Wolff in this matter. They consider Northern Ireland to be a special case, and they have taken steps in their decisions with regard to cuts in public expenditure which have avoided the worst consequences for Northern Ireland. Therefore, will they again give priority to consideration of a defence contract for Harland and Wolff?
Perhaps the Under-Secretary, who opened the debate most lucidly and who explained to us the amounts of money which have to be raised, will deal with those points. I have nothing further to say at this stage. We welcome the order.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This debate on the Appropriation Order is one of the three debates in the year equivalent to the three Consolidated Fund debates for the rest of the United Kingdom—debates which give hon. Members the opportunity to ventilate some of the matters which are of most concern to them and their constituents.
It is a pity that the Secretary of State himself is not able to be present, at any rate for the first of these debates which we are having this afternoon, as the subjects mentioned and the emphasis given to them are a useful indication of at any rate some of the places at which the shoe is pinching. I hope that it will be possible for the Secretary of State to attend some part of the debate.
It has proved convenient in the past that the debate should as far as possible concentrate upon certain subjects made known in advance to the Minister who is replying. Without of course being able to rule out the raising of other points by hon. Members, the subjects which were notified by my hon. Friends and myself were Class I, agriculture—remoteness grants, under Subhead 3, and drainage under Subhead 5; Class IV, roads; and Class V, housing, with special reference to Belfast.
I propose to restrict myself to two of those subjects and to make the majority of my remarks in the context of drainage—major projects. I fear that the Under-Secretary must think from the growing

volume of my correspondence with him on this subject that I am getting water on the brain. Certainly I find that month by month the relative importance of land drainage in my correspondence with my constituents and amongst their varied anxieties continues to increase and I see no sign at present of that increase coming to an end.
Water—water supply and water power—has been fundamental to the economy of Northern Ireland for centuries. It is fascinating as one descends one of the main waterways such as the Upper Bann to notice how in a former century the industrious and prosperous population extracted the last ounce of energy from the water power in their area—each time, wherever a sufficient fall has taken place in the river, there comes another installation, another place where a mill was active. In my own village of Loughbrickland, even a small stream worked within the space of little more than a mile a saw mill, a corn mill, a flax mill, and a scutching mill. Those mills are now all gone. Economic change has rendered water power and its remarkable utilisation in Northern Ireland completely obsolete, and that brings me at once to one of the causes of our current drainage problems.
The water supply which was once so accurately and skilfully controlled for the purposes of yielding power is no longer utilised for that purpose. So the old installations have fallen out of use and out of repair, leaving behind them in many cases a pattern of drainage which is not apt to current needs and requirements, and often incidentally a pattern of ownership which makes it difficult for the reforms and improvements which are necessary to be effected.
Clearly, there are other causes too at work. One of them no doubt is development in various forms—certainly housing, and other developments too—in the river basins, which has increased the flow of water from the surface and thus placed an increasing burden upon the capacity of the watercourses. But whatever may be the sum total of the causes at work, one thing is quite certain. That is that the area suffering from insufficient land drainage—certainly in my constituency, and I suspect that it is not unique in this respect—is not diminishing but in creasing.
I have to tell the Minister that week after week I find myself in places in my constituency where those who utilise the land can actually show me bogland which, within their memory, and even within very recent years, was either grazed or cultivated. So the situation is not static; it is not slowly improving; in many parts of the area about which I speak it is in fact deteriorating.
It is the natural anxiety which this creates, as well as a sense of outrage—perhaps I am not putting it too high in using that word—that land fundamentally fertile and valuable should be out of use in Northern Ireland, that leads me to make this the main subject with which I shall detain the House.
The essence of the problem over most of South Down is centred upon the three main watercourses. Of course, on the seaward side there is a more complex and subdivided system of drainage. That, too, has its own problems; but they are on a minor scale, not for those affected but in proportion to the whole question of land drainage in Northern Ireland.
The three watercourses, an interest in which I share to varying degrees with my colleagues, are the Clanrye which flows out through the Newry River—an interest in which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker)—the Upper Bann, in which I also have a shared interest with him to a lesser degree—and of course that monstrous river of Northern Ireland, that bitch of a river, if I might dare so to describe it, if the expression be not too ungrateful towards a source of fertility—the Lagan, in which I suppose a majority of the hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies have a very lively interest.
The fundamental fact of the situation is that what flows off the land and what can be drained from the land, over a great part of my constituency and further afield, must be conveyed to the sea through one of these three water courses. That is something which is difficult for the individual farmer to realise. It is hard to explain to those who complain about the inefficiency of land drainage in their immediate area, where they see the actual damage and experience the results, that the remedy of the fault depends on works 30

to 50 miles away, which are immensely complicated and expensive.
I am asking this afternoon that the whole picture of the future improvement of the land drainage system—in the eastern part of Northern Ireland at least—should be laid bare for the House and the public by the Government. There must be a clearer picture, so that hon, Members, let alone the public, can see how the development will proceed over the coming years. Of the three watercourses that I have mentioned the Upper Bann is by far the least problematic. While I shall not say that further minor improvements in that catchment area are not necessary, it is the other two that raise the greatest problems, and it is about these that I shall address specific questions to the Under-Secretary.
It is almost two years since the Under-Secretary's predecessor provided me with a statement of proceedings for the radical improvement of the lower reaches of the Lagan upon which depend so many agricultural and other improvements in a large part of the eastern half of the Province. He told me in a letter of 25th April 1975:
It has been decided to make use of the latest available computer based techniques in analysing the behaviour of the river and its reaction to heavy rainfall. The Hydraulics Research Station and the Institute of Hydrology have been commissioned to prepare computer programmes which will enable the Department to simulate the behaviour of the whole river channel when alterations are made to improve particular reaches. The Department will also be enabled to assess the overall effect of treating the flooding problem by different means.
He concluded that passage of his letter by saying
the preparation of these programmes is now well advanced.
If it was "well advanced" two years ago, I submit that the Government should be prepared to say now how their thoughts are crystallising and what specific plans have been decided upon for the management of the crucial lower part of the course of the River Lagan. This is something that hon. Members representing Belfast seats need to know just as much as those representing areas higher up the Lagan. I appreciate that the works involved will be major and very costly; but there is no reason why the outlines of these works as they have


emerged from the studies should not be made known to the public through hon. Members.
In this matter, as in many others in Northern Ireland, information is the essence of leadership. People are inherently reasonable. In Northern Ireland they have learned to be patient as well. But they will be reasonable and patient only if they have information which enables them to understand how their particular problems are part of a general picture, and how the larger problems are to be dealt with by the Government. So I call for information, in this debate and subsequently in a fuller and more publicly accessible form, about the state of study, planning and decisions on major works on the lower course of the Lagan. If the Minister can add an indication of the dates on which a physical start can be made on these works, so much the better.
From the Lagan I pass to that equally problematic river, the Clanrye, which has the misfortune to describe an exaggerated "S" shape in its passage through the lower part of County Down on its way to discover the Newry River and so through Carlingford Lough to reach the sea. Here again, virtually no improvement can be made in land drainage over a large area—something like 100 square miles—unless and until the capacity of the exit of the Clanrye through the Newry River is radically improved. It was over a year ago that the Minister provided me with an indication of the present state of play.
In a most interesting and comprehensive letter of 11th February last year he indicated the alternatives which were available—all the possible major projects for clearing an adequate channel through Newry to the sea and thus unlocking the problem of drainage in the area that I have described. He said that it had been decided already that the proposal to create a single channel, by linking the canal and the river in the town of Newry, was accepted by the Departments and the district council as the most acceptable from all points of view.
This course would involve major replanning of the centre of the town of Newry.
I say in parenthesis that there is a great deal in the town of Newry—once

elegant and happy—that is worth preserving; but the preservation of what is worth preserving is only possible if there is to be fundamental renewal in other parts, and I regard the scheme for the improvement of the Newry River in the town of Newry as the key, not only to land drainage, but to a radical change in the psychological as well as physical outlook of the town.
So the Minister explained a year ago that there was a great deal of planning work to be done in the town before the way was clear for the works to begin. He used this expression:
It is not anticipated that actual work on the ground will commence before 1978/79.
But 1978–79 is now the next financial year after the one we are considering in the Vote on Account. Therefore, it should already be possible for the Government to give quite specific indications of where we are going in handling the watercourse of the Clanrye and the Newry River. They should be able to hold out a general time scale over which the works are expected to be spread, and to give some estimate of what the works will involve and the expenditure required.
There was a time when works of this sort used to evoke a local pride and interest and an almost personal commitment on the part of the local population who witnessed them. This was of no small importance in securing the steps necessary for such works to be carried out—the agreements, wayleaves, and so on—and also the support for the massive expenditure which is going to be necessary.
That brings me to the general plea which I want to make to the Minister. I carried on a debate in the summer of last year, in the form of question and answer, with the former Secretary of State and with the hon. Gentleman about the possibility of producing some sort of presentation which would be available, and available in a publicly intelligible form, showing the whole picture of the potentialities of land drainage in Northern Ireland, and giving an indication of the stages by which the major works of improvement were expected to be carried out.
I cannot say that the then Secretary of State responded very readily to my proposition; but I think that there was


perhaps one justification for his reluctance to accept the proposal in the form in which I put it—namely, that if one has a plan which is too cut and dried, too carefully dated, one can be pretty certain that it is going to be the victim of what is called "slippage", and that it may in the end result in causing more disappointment than satisfaction.
But it is not a dated, phased plan of that kind for which I am calling this afternoon, though there are contexts in which such a plan has been quite a valuable instrument—perhaps I might be forgiven for referring to the Hospital Plan for England and Wales, first edition, 1962. But what is more important at this stage is something more general. It is an indication of the major schemes which are going to be started in the next two or three years, and of the scope which those schemes will afford for widespread improvement of land drainage over large areas of the Province. I see no reason why, in trying to answer the specific questions that I have addressed to him, the hon. Gentleman should not show the public the picture of what ought to happen, in the next five years, to transform the situation in the basin of the Lagan and in the basin of the Newry and Clanrye rivers.
In some respects, the Northern Ireland Office is very anxious, perhaps sometimes too anxious, to go in for glossy propaganda presentation. I think we all get a document, monthly or fortnightly, wrapped up, for some reason, in cellophane—one can never discover which end to start opening it—which contains most glowing descriptions of the efforts that the Government are making at development in various aspects of the life and economy of the Province. Agencies such as the Housing Executive are all too ready to clothe their reports in literally the most highly coloured covers and presentation.
What I am asking for is a little, only a little, of that sort of effort in order to inform and to enthuse the public in the context of land drainage. It will aid the task of the Drainage Division—to which I pay tribute, as I have done to the readiness of the Minister to concern himself even with the minutiae of land drainage when it is brought to his attention—in explaining the necessity to defer projects which those concerned know are so neces-

sary higher up-stream. It will help the Drainage Division to make those concerned content with minor works for the time being when major works are clearly necessary. It will show the public as a whole the prospect of a really great improvement in the utilisation of the land in the eastern part of the Province as a result of the big schemes which we know the Government have in mind, and which have got to be carried out, or substantially carried out, before the end of this decade.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respond in the spirit in which I have put the proposition to him, both when he replies to this debate and also subsequently in the management of the public relations of one of the most important parts of the Department of Agriculture. the Drainage Division.
I now want to refer briefly to just one other subject in the list—the road service, and that in one context only. I am not sure whether Northern Ireland Ministers are fully aware of the great differences and inequalities between the relationships which hon. Members seeking to represent their constituents are able to build up with the officials, the bodies and Departments respectively concerned with different subjects. I can assure him that there is an enormous range from the most inaccessible and circuitous on the one hand to the most direct and personal on the other. I am not seeking to attribute blame. I am just identifying the facts and making a plea for an improvement which will be very much in the interests of Ministers themselves as well as of right hon. and hon. Members and their constituents.
There is no area of administration in Northern Ireland where communications—in my experience anyway—are more circumlocutory, circuitous and impeded than the work of the road service. Clearly, the same instructions which have enabled the Housing Executive and its local district and area managers to be in direct personal touch with hon. Members, and which enable us to be in collusion, I almost said, with many other branches of the administration at a level below Stormont and the Under-Secretaries of State themselves, have not reached the road service.
I think it will be the experience of all my hon. Friends that the remedying of a


minor road defect, let alone the question of a major road scheme—you may be astonished to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that these things can be handled in Northern Ireland only by a responsible elected representative in the person of an hon. Member of this House—that all these matters have to ascend to the empyrean of an Under-Secretary of State in order that they may thence descend again, with ultimate blessing or otherwise, upon the hon. Member concerned and his complaining constituents. This is quite unnecessary.
We have in pursuance of our duties to bring forward matters small and large. If they are large, then, in proportion to their importance, we shall naturally address ourselves to a member of the Government, if necessary to the Secretary of State personally. But it is clearly absurd and inconvenient that all correspondence on this subject should have to be handled at ministerial level. So much of it could be dealt with more swiftly, more understandingly and more to the satisfaction of those locally aggrieved if there were some direct relationship—across the wires, as it were—at the grass roots, at road level, between the appropriate part of the road service and hon. Members of this House.
The hon. Gentleman might strengthen his hand by speaking to his fellow Under-Secretary, who deals with questions of roads and who receives an average of a letter a day from me on that subject—and I send on to him by no means ail the complaints which reach me. I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would address his mind to this matter and see whether we can have an administrative simplification in the Department. That would cut out a great deal of useless work and unnecessary writing and enable what must be done sooner or later to be done much more promptly and with much more satisfaction.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North): I was slow to react when you called me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I had some doubts about taking part in this debate, as by doing so I am lending some credibility to what I regard as the parliamentary charade of this procedure.
At Question Time today I put to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

that the Northern Ireland Committee should meet at Stormont. I am sorry that he rejected that suggestion, because I believe that the parliamentary proceedings relating to Northern Ireland would be helped inestimably if the Ulster people could sit in and listen to what is being said about the Province and their problems. We have many words from the Secretary of State, as we did from his predecessors, but talk is cheap. I remember his immediate predecessor admonishing the people of Northern Ireland, and particularly the politicians, for not doing their job. But how can Ulster politicians do their job if they face the attitude which the Ministers and the Northern Ireland Office adopt?
The previous Secretary of State now occupies a grander office as Home Secretary. I suppose that that proves that nothing succeeds like failure. I hope, though I fear vainly, that the present Secretary of State will do something to restore parliamentary democracy to the Ulster people.
I regret to say that Northern Ireland suffers worse than any other part of the United Kingdom from our economic position. The sum of £3 million allocated for price restraint is not adequate to help the Ulster people. Any public money spent on price restraint is to be welcomed, as is the setting up of the consumer advice centres, although their efficacy in keeping down housekeeping costs for the average busy housewife is very doubtful. In 12 months Northern Ireland has seen food prices rise at a faster rate than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The position is even worse than that would suggest, as the price base of 12 months ago was already significantly higher than Great Britain's over a range of domestic foods.
The large potato harvest has filled the gap left in Great Britain by last year's drought, but today potatoes are more expensive than ever. The same is true of meat and pork products, especially bacon. In a land of egg producers, eggs are 50p a dozen and are providing minimal profits for the producers.
Pay policy has also impinged more heavily on depressed areas than elsewhere. The margin between the supplementary benefit scale rates and the typical weekly wage of an unskilled man


or woman has already disappeared in families with four children or more. Yesterday I heard of two brothers, one in a job and the other unemployed, both with the same number of children. The man who was working had only £2 more per week than his brother who was receiving benefit. That is not the way in which the workers in the Province or anywhere else in the nation should be treated. It must have an adverse effect.
The situation is worsened when most of the money earned in overtime by the average worker is taken away in tax. That is no incentive to higher productivity. The high rate of taxation on incomes is now a burden which will have to be reduced if the country is to get up off its knees.
The few exceptional cases of eight-child and 10-child families—where benefits could be more than £60 a week—receive the publicity. But the sad cases are the one-parent families, the widow or wife separated from her husband and in a low-wage job. Many are employed only part time for 20 or 25 hours a week. Family income supplement helps, but the rates have been overtaken by price rises.
With shopkeepers having to struggle with very highly rated property and astronomical rates bills, as well as energy bills, they have little scope for reducing the price of goods. The various rent and rate rebate schemes for Housing Executive tenants help in extreme cases, but we must also remember the real hardship in older private housing areas, where many elderly people are living on pensions or fixed incomes. They suffer, and it is sad to see some of them in their homes asking what they can do in view of the constantly rising cost of living.
The young people also fare badly. New private houses and bungalows are heavily mortgaged, and the mortgage repayments are a nightmare for the newly married. Perhaps the £325 housing subsidy for owner-occupiers could be increased to reduce the initial burden of the amount which the prospective owner must pay. An increase would help young people setting up home.
I have made the point before, but it is worth repeating, that more resources should be directed into wealth-earning and wealth-creating activities. Food

processing is a fertile field for development in Northern Ireland. Our only natural resources are land, grass and the water about which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke. This is an ideal combination for the development of food processing in the Province. The industry would be backed by the Queen's University, Ulster College and the Agricultural College's courses on food technology. More needs to he done in this area.
It is a shame that the Belfast Food Products firm was allowed to go into liquidation a few years ago. There should have been an investigation into the working of the Pig Marketing Board. I had a plea from a former Chairman of the Board, Mr. Swain, who has often told me of his search for someone who would arrange for an investigation since he believed that the Board was directly responsible for the death of the firm. It is not too late for the Government to grant the request for an investigation. If, as the Board says, there is nothing to hide, it should agree, but it does not. The Government should do something in this sphere In the past the pig producers, as well as others have suffered as a result of the Board's activities.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is at least one case before the Northern Ireland Ombudsman which will reflect on the lack of expertise if not the lack of integrity of the Pig Marketing Board, and that the outcome of those investigations may well assist the person to whom my hon. Friend has referred?

Mr. Kilfedder: It is heartening to know that the Ombudsman, who, we must admit, has limited powers, is investigating at least one case. The Government have a duty to taxpayers to investigate the entire working of the Pig Marketing Board during the past 10 years.
The year 1976 saw the closure of some other food processing firms such as Colin Glen and already this year two or three of the big meat packing companies have gone on short time. Here our natural assets are being damaged by EEC rules and regulations.
We had a statement today from a Northern Ireland Minister saying how much the Common Market was doing for Northern Ireland. I know that a fair bit


of money comes to Northern Ireland from the Common Market's Social Fund and Regional Fund, but the Government at Westminster then deduct that amount from the money which goes to the people, the industry, and the workers in Northern Ireland. That is a sad situation. It seems that there is a certain amount of Government deceit in the matter. I am sorry that Northern Ireland does not have a direct representative at Strasbourg in the European Parliament. An Ulster representative would be able to expose the humbug that sometimes falls from the lips of Northern Ireland Ministers.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. McCusker: I wish to draw the Minister's attention to Part II, Class 1, No. 4, dealing with expenditure of the Department of Agriculture on fishery services, amounting to £1,029,000. Can the Minister tell us exactly what that money is used for?
I congratulate the Minister, and through him the Department of Agriculture, for the work that the Department has done in the last 10 years in its fishery work. As someone who is not the slightest bit interested in angling or fishing it was revealing for me to obtain the angling guide for 1977 produced by the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and to realise how much the Department has achieved in the past decade. It has brought more than 70 waters into use, developing them and making them available to the public. To a layman who is not interested in fishing this seems to be a farsighted and imaginative approach, to bring improved fishing to local people who are interested, and also to attempt to exploit fishing as a tourist attraction.
It was, therefore, rather disquieting to see in the Press this week an attack on the Department of Agriculture by the Ulster Angling Federation. I do not know whether the attack is justified, but when the federation passes a unanimous vote of no confidence in those responsible for the statutory management of fisheries in Northern Ireland—and they include the Department of Agriculture—and accuses them of lack of machinery for consultation with other bodies, failure to act on pollution, and inadequate stocking programmes, it really worries someone like me who has only a general interest.
The angling guide is a very impressive document and contains an impressive list of the achievements of the Department of Agriculture. If I take up fishing in later life perhaps I can look forward to an enjoyable retirement in some of the places listed in the guide. Undoubtedly the attitude of the federation has been caused by what it considers to be large increases in the costs of fishing, due to increases in the costs of permits and rod licences.
It seems that it now costs £12 a year to fish in these waters. All I can say is that £12 a year for an enthusiastic, able-bodied working fisherman is not a lot of money. It works out at only £1 a month or 25p a week, which does not appear to be excessive. However, I am told by a colleague who is a fisherman that fishing does not take place all the year round, so perhaps it does not work out in those simple terms. It does not seem that £12 is unreasonable for the facilities available, except for one category of people to whom I wish to draw the Minister's attention.
At the moment, juveniles, under 16 years old, do not have to pay £12. They can obtain a permit for £1 and a licence for £2, thus giving the under-16s fishing for £3 a year against the £12 for adults. For one category of people, the old-age pensioners, £12 is a substantial sum, especially for someone who has, perhaps, enjoyed fishing in his active life and has looked forward to enjoying it even more in his retirement, and for whom £12 represents a whole week's income. If it is thought proper to exclude juveniles from having to pay the full £12 the Minister should consider whether it is appropriate to grant some relief to old-age pensioners. I know that at a time of economic restraint I am asking for something that the Minister may, perhaps, find difficult, but I hope that he will consider the matter. Pensioners in Northern Ireland are not as well off as pensioners in the rest of the United Kingdom. They do not have concessionary fares. In fact, they have to pay higher costs for other services, as has been mentioned on many occasions. Such a gesture as I ask for would be much appreciated by that section of the Northern Ireland fishing fraternity. I hope that the Minister will consider my appeal.


I also want to draw attention to Part 2, Class VIII, No. 4, dealing with Department of Education expenditure on youth, sports and allied services and community relations, amounting to £4,922,000. I ask whether in that sum or in the other sums listed under that class provision is made for the £10,000 a year grant to the Educational Guidance Service for Adults provided by the Northern Ireland Council of Social Service. The guidance service has been providing a very valuable service to the Northern Ireland community for the past 10 years. The very commendable work that it has been doing, much of it pioneering work, has attracted attention in places far afield from Northern Ireland. The service has been referred to in a variety of reports and bulletins, including one by UNESCO. The Open University Committee on Continuing Education, in a report recommending the setting up of a national counselling service for adult students. went as far as to say that the
Northern Ireland Educational Guidance Service for Adults deserves particular mention.
The tragedy is that in trying to tidy up things in Northern Ireland some people believe that it is time to get rid of a service which they do not control and do not own. These people think that it is time that the service was trimmed off and tidied up, in the same way that two years ago the youth employment service was tidied up. In fact we destroyed it. We were told that the youth employment service was being turned into a multiservice placement organisation which would deal with people from the cradle to the grave. We objected, and said that the service was being destroyed, and that no adequate replacement was being put in its place. That has turned out to be true.
People have told me that vocational guidance for youth in Northern Ireland, formerly provided by the youth employment service, is not the same standard as it was prior to the destruction of the youth employment service. If the Government go ahead with running down this service, which they can do simply by refusing to grant-aid it, they will be destroying a very valuable service for which there is no replacement.
It is sad to read in the final paragraph of the 1976 annual report the following words:

The Council greatly regrets that the Government is apparently unwilling to make use of the accumulated knowledge and experience of the Educational Guidance Service; however, other parts of the United Kingdom will doubtless be starting experiments, in the belief that an Adult Counselling Service would be of value in community development; and already there are signs that the lessons of Northern Ireland's experience will be helpful elsewhere, if not at home.
It has been a most rewarding ten years for all taking part and, the Council believes, helpful to many of those using the Service; it is glad to record in this, possibly the last Report, the following comment, taken from a letter from a London Community Centre ' reading of your Service was like seeing an oasis in the desert '!
That is the obituary of the Educational Guidance Service for Adults as provided in Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland Council of Social Service.
The guidance service in 10 years has processed—if that is the correct term—more than 4,000 clients. It has been costing the Education Department over the past few years £10,000 a year. There are numerous front organisations for what charitably could be called community workers who are really organisations for terrorists which are not short of money. It is a tragedy to deprive a worthy organisation such as the guidance service of £10,000 when to do so is to destroy it.
It has been indicated to the service that it might be allowed to continue as a specialist agency, but it cannot do that without assistance. The organisation is frantically looking around for sources of aid, but it needs a continuing supply of money from the Department of Education. It does not know, however, how much the Department will offer it for the coming year. Will the Minister say whether there is an allowance for this expenditure within the global sum that I mentioned earlier?
We understand that the Belfast Education Board and the other education boards may be trying to develop a replacement service, but they have made no great progress in this direction. They do not have the specialist staff needed to man such a service. There is no point in destroying the guidance service in the way that the youth employment service was destroyed, unless an alternative to it is available.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. John Carson: In a recent statement to the Belfast City Council the Minister responsible for the Department of the Environment said that a new and better Belfast could arise. In common with every public representative in Northern Ireland, especially those from Belfast, he was rightly concerned at the decline in Belfast housing.
I should like to comment on some of the projects and actions which are needed to help to solve the vast housing problems of inner Belfast. One of the most important things to be done in the area is to defeat the terrorists. They have inflicted much violence and terror in and around inner Belfast, and to such an extent that, in fear of their lives and concerned for their families, people have vacated homes in which they have lived for many years. The bombing and the shooting have forced them to leave these areas and have brought about a decline in the housing there.
I was pleased that the Minister was prepared to establish a steering group to deal with this matter. The figures relating to the Belfast area make shocking reading. They show that of the 123,120 houses in Belfast, 29,750, or 24·2 per cent., are totally unfit. Only 59,110, or 48 per cent., are described as sound, and about 15,710 houses need such basic amenities as baths, inside toilets and hot water.
More than 40 per cent. of Belfast's houses were built over 60 years ago, and some are 110 years old. It is clear from the figures that many people are asked to live in deplorable conditions in inner Belfast. I congratulate the Under-Secretary on the efforts he has made to acquaint himself with the problems that face the people there, and on the time that he has spent in conference with the elected representatives in the Belfast City Council and with the tenants' associations to find some means of solving this great problem.
I am, however, worried about the steering group that the Minister has set up. Alderman Miles Humphries, the Lord Mayor of Belfast, is a member of it. I have nothing against him. He is a member of my party. However, he has such a big heart that he can say "No" to nothing. He is chairman of a great many committees, however. He is Chairman of Northern Ireland Railways, of a firm of

vehicle body builders, of the police authority and of other bodies. How can someone with so many commitments devote the time that is needed to tackling such an enormous problem as the Minister described to the Belfast City Council? The Minister should have another look at the constitution of this group and should consider the time it will have to spend examining the housing problem of inner Belfast.
I come next to the chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, Mr. James O'Hara. Mr. O'Hara has failed to keep his own house in order. He has been part of the charade which has been the means of granting contracts. Enormous amounts of public money have been spent to such an extent that this has been a cause of police investigation. How can Mr. O'Hara, who has failed as Chairman of the Housing Executive, ever hope to be part of a steering group to bring stability to the housing needs of inner Belfast?
Mr. O'Hara has not only failed to keep his own house in order, but is biased against public representatives. This bias has been demonstrated repeatedly. An example was when he came to open a house which was renovated at No. 9 Upper Meadow Street. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was excluded. When the Chairman of the Housing Executive handed over the keys of the house—he must have been thought of as royalty—for some reason he failed to inform the publicly elected representatives that he would be performing that duty. He opened the house at 10·30 in the morning, and I received a letter at 2 p.m. telling me when the keys were to be handed over. I immediately telephoned his secretary who said that for security reasons no one was informed beforehand. Who does Mr. James O'Hara think he is? Even Ministers when they are to visit an hon. Member's constituency usually inform him beforehand.
I do not believe that the matter was kept quiet for security reasons. I think that Mr. O'Hara thought that, because the house was in the New Lodge Road area, I would not be acceptable there as a public representative. I can tell Mr. O'Hara that I had been in that area many times dealing with constituents' matters. For his information, many


people in that area accept me as a Member of Parliament and come to me on many occasions for advice and for help with their problems.
How can Mr. O'Hara be tied up with public functions, having tigers in the zoo named after him, opening houses, performing major functions in Belfast, and America, and chairing many companies, when he is biased against some public representatives? How can the Minister ever have the support of the public and its elected representatives in dealing with this steering group?
I thank the Minister for visiting the Belfast City Council, for talking to its representatives and for visiting the different constituencies with myself and councillors to see the problems. It would be much better if members of the city council, the people who know the problems of such areas as the New Lodge Road, the Ardoyne, Shankill Road, Tigers Bay and Duncairn Gardens, were made members of the steering group. If that were done, I believe that the Minister would find much more satisfactory means for solving some of Belfast's housing problems.
One of the reasons for the grave decline in Belfast housing was the failure of the present Government to implement the Porter Report, which has been before us for two years. It will not be implemented, nor will it come before the House for legislation until some time in 1978. Yet to deal with the Housing Executive properly over the past two years the Ministers responsible for housing in Northern Ireland have had to ask for legislation for rent increases for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
It has been suggested to me that this might be means by which the Housing Executive and the Government could force landlords out of business. Private landlords have been losing many thousands of pounds over the last few years through taking small rents and having to spend vast amounts on repairs and upkeep. The Housing Executive could step in if a landlord felt that he had lost money, that the property was not viable and that he could not maintain it. He might decide to give the Executive the property for nothing. I think that thought is behind the decision not to legislate on the Porter Report on the private rented sector.
The Minister has reminded us that it was not only the responsibility of the Westminster Government. The Stormont Government were equally guilty of rent restriction, and they bear a big responsibility for the decline of houses owned by private landlords in inner Belfast.
There is another reason for the decline. I have taken a close interest in this because the inner part of Belfast is the biggest part of my constituency and it a working-class area. I was brought up in a working-class area and I know the problems that face people and I know their difficulties. Some areas have been earmarked for development and have even had vesting orders served on them by the Housing Executive. The people there say "There is no future for me in this street. My house has been vested in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive". They then move to other places.
Yet year after year the Housing Executive fails to comply with the vesting order or to put it into effect. We have large areas of empty houses or bricked-up houses and waste land which has been vandalised and infested by vermin because the Northern Ireland Executive has failed to live up to its obligations and the promises given to people that it would pursue the vesting order and rebuild.
I attended a meeting on Monday night in my constituency with the architect and members of the Housing Executive. We discussed an area which was vested in the Executive. The Executive had promised that rebuilding in that area would start in June 1976. But the architect said that they would not proceed with it, because they did not have the finance. I asked whether he could give a guarantee about when work would start, but I was told "No". I asked whether he had any idea when rebuilding would start and was told that there was a good possibility that it would start in October 1978.
Many people moved out of that area and were promised that in a year's time they would be able to return. Two years have passed and people have yet to see a brick being laid. They were told that the houses were being vested in the Housing Executive and that they would be rebuilt for the people of that district.
This is just one of many things that have been happening. I sympathise with


the Minister in his difficult task. I see the problems and the responsibilities facing not only the Housing Executive but all the elected representatives. I hope that the Minister will listen to those representatives and to the members of the Belfast City Council. I hope that he will put them on the steering group and that he will listen to the tenants' associations. I hope that he will involve the people promptly so that houses can be built for people in Belfast, which would help to alleviate their fears and problems.
Rehabilitation is another problem facing the people in my constituency, and it will have been a problem to all hon. Members who live in Belfast. On a recent visit to my constituency the Minister said that North Belfast and West Belfast were the two areas of the city that most needed rehabilitation, and I hope that the programme, which was widely welcomed, will be stepped up quickly and efficiently.
There are areas in my constituency that should be declared action areas, although I have to tell the Government that one of the curses of action areas, leisure centres and similar projects is that they are helping to create segregation in Belfast. The Government say to themselves that if they do something in a Protestant area, that will keep the Protestants happy and another project in a Catholic area will keep the Catholics happy. The Government would do better to look at the worst parts of the city and judge the need of the people there, irrespective of their class or creed.
I hope that the Minister will heed the advice of elected representatives and keep a close watch on the rehabilitation schemes. Looking back at the rehabilitation of the Moyard and White Rock areas of Belfast and the deplorable misuse of public money in these schemes makes one afraid for the future.
Last month I asked about the cost of rehabilitated properties at Moyard before and after October 1975 by the Andersons town Co-Operative Limited, O'Neill Brothers and Broadway Building Works. The Minister gave me some very revealing figures. Before October, 1975, the Andersonstown Co-Operative charged £11,049, O'Neill Brothers charged £10,920

and the Broadway Building Works—and I ask hon. Members to note this carefully—charged £15,996—nearly £16,000 to rehabilitate a property. At the current rate of inflation, that figure would be about £25,000 today.
After these details were brought to light by myself and my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Belfast, West, a police investigation was started and we have some interesting figures for the cost of rehabilitation after October 1975. The Andersonstown Co-Operative charged £7,283, O'Neill Brothers £7,376 and Broadway Building Works, which had previously been charging nearly £16,000, was now charging £6,623.
This was all part of the rehabilitation scheme. I draw the facts to the attention of the House because public money was involved and the Minister has emphasised how difficult it is to find finance to continue housing projects in Belfast as he would like. Here we have a Housing Executive that was giving out public money as if the money came from a never-ending spring. I leave hon. Members to guess what the people who received that money did with it.
The principle of rehabilitation schemes is good and we supported the rehabilitation of many properties in Belfast, but we demand that programmes should be closely scrutinised and that there should be no waste of public money. The houses in Belfast should be rehabilitated speedily and at a reasonable and proper cost.
We still have 6,000 squatters in Belfast. What steps are the Government taking to stop squatting? There is almost 100 per cent. squatting on the Twinbrook housing estate. As soon as houses are completed—and sometimes even before the doors are screwed on—the squatters move in, but there have been no prosecutions or attempts by the Housing Executive to remove them.
I should like to draw the attention of hon. Members to a directive issued to the area offices of the Housing Executive. It says:
Legal proceedings should only be instituted where there is no danger to staff and where, in the opinion of the local police, it should be possible to execute a decree.
That directive relates to only one part of the community in Belfast. That is the


tragedy of the situation. If we do not deal with this matter properly, we shall have people saying that certain parts of the community are squatting and that nothing is being done about it. As public representatives we condemn and advise against squatting. In certain areas of my constituency I have told people to get out of houses because they should not have possession unless that has been granted to them by the Housing Executive. Yet there is a directive that action cannot be taken against squatters.
We have mentioned some of the tragedies, offered remedies and suggested actions that could helip the inner area of Belfast. I grew up in my constituency. I speak as someone who has been and still is involved in local government, in youth work, with senior citizens and who has always worked with people. I speak from vast experience.
The system of paying rates and rents in Northern Ireland is less than satisfactory to tenants. I have suggested before that statements of accounts should be provided to all tenants at six-monthly intervals. I have met many people who have been told without warning that they are in arrears with their rents. The Housing Executive should send out six-monthly statements to tenants to let them know the current position.
Inconvenience and frustration are caused to tenants in their attempts to get the necessary maintenance and repairs done to their dwellings. The Minister should listen carefully. A complete overhaul of Housing Executive maintenance procedures is urgently required not only in Belfast but throughout Northern Ireland. The maintenance of Housing Executive property is deplorable.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) rightly said that this was an opportunity that is rarely given to hon. Members from Northern Ireland to express their views on the difficult matters that arise in their constituencies. There is an old saying in Northern Ireland—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good". Perhaps we have been afforded this opportunity to bring these matters to the attention of the House because of

the failure of the devolution Bill to make progress.
Some of the matters that we raise may sound insular and parochial, but I do not see too many hon. Members from the United Kingdom in the Chamber and I am sure that those who are here will not be offended by our parochial approach.
Many matters that affect Northern Ireland hon. Members have already been raised. I shall add my expression of anxiety to theirs. The order is similar to the Consolidated Fund Bill. I draw attention to Schedule 1, Class II(5) which relates to expenditure for the Department of Manpower Services for the seriously disabled, industrial rehabilitation and training. I can speak with knowledge of the aid that is given to the seriously disabled in Northern Ireland: such services are non-existent.
In the rest of the United Kingdom much concern is felt and help is given to those who are seriously disabled. They are assisted to find employment. However, in Northern Ireland, where there has always been a serious unemployment problem, employers, perhaps naturally, do not give jobs to those who do not possess all their physical faculties. They tend to discriminate in favour of those who possess all their physical and mental capabilities. The problem of the disabled who are seeking employment in Northern Ireland is therefore exacerbated.
I know many hundreds of people who are signing the unemployment register or seeking employment knowing that they will never get a job in Northern Ireland. They are in receipt of invalidity benefits and supplementary benefits. The Ministry of Health and Social Services as at present constituted in Northern Ireland is not fully aware of the extent of the problem of the disabled. The disabled are not being given the help that they would get in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Class IV(1) of the same schedule refers to expenditure on road services, including lighting, parking and road safety. In Belfast road lighting is non-existent. The situation is particularly bad in north and west Belfast. The reason given for lack of lighting is that it is a security problem and that the Army, police and security forces have objected to lighting being provided. But people living in those


areas pay rates and taxes and are entitled to the same consideration as anyone living elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
People in my constituency have been killed because there is no lighting. Accidents have taken place. The Minister will probably say that it is a matter for the security forces but he must pay attention to the problem particularly as it affects old people. Thep pay their rates and taxes and are entitled to adequate lighting.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) and I represent the most poorly housed constituents in Northern Ireland, apart from those of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. West and south Belfast have suffered over many years from inadequate housing. That has resulted in a tendency to create ghettos for Protestants or Roman Catholics and for Loyalists and Republicans. That has exacerbated the problem. The Minister is not yet fully aware of the extent of that problem.
I attended the ceremony for the handing over of the keys at No. 9 Upper Meadow Street. I am not sure whether I was invited or whether I gatecrashed, but I got there somehow. I think it was just after the ceremony had taken place. I found it hard to believe that the addition of a bathroom unit to a small house in Upper Meadow Street, with two small bedrooms, a hall and a kitchen, should cost £8,000.
I believe that I know the builder who did this installation. I think that £8,000 was far too much to pay for this bathroom unit. This is an area which must be developed in the next 20 or 30 years. I do not believe that the Housing Executive has adequately inquired into whether it would be better to knock down these houses and rebuild rather than attempt to rehabilitate the houses.
For many years Belfast was regarded as having a higher standard of living per wage packet than any other part of the United Kingdom. This was brought about because of the lower price of housing. As hon. Members have said, those days have gone. Housing in Northern Ireland is just as expensive, in some cases more so, as in any other part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that a bathroom costs £8,000?

Mr. Fitt: Yes. What I saw at No. 9 Upper Meadow Street was a bathroom unit. I understand that it can be built in a factory and lowered into the back yard of the house. The bathroom unit and the plastering of walls, which was all I saw, cost £8,000. I think that was quite a lot of money.

Mr. Gow: What the hon. Member has said is absolutely unbelievable. It is possible to build a three-bedroom council house in this part of the United Kingdom at a total cost below £8,000.

Mr. Fitt: I hope that those in authority in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Minister will take note of that. The figures I am quoting are accurate. They were given to me by people in authority.

Mr. Carson: I can support what the hon. Member says because I visited these houses and made a thorough investigation of the position. I am sure that the hon. Member would agree that we have investigated the situation. That was the price for putting in the bathroom.

Mr. Fitt: I realise the extent of the terrible housing problem we have in north and west Belfast. However, if that is the lowest possible cost at which we can rehabilitate a two-bedroomed house, the overall cost will be so enormous that the country will not be able to afford it. I believe that I know the builder who carried out this renovation. I do not believe that he can in any way be put into the category of builders mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Belfast, North. The hon. Member gave us figures for the cost of rehabilitation of flats in the west Belfast area. These are now at £7,000 and £7,500 whereas formerly they were £10,000, £15,000 and £16,000.
Everyone accepts that there were unscrupulous builders, aided and abetted by gunmen in para-military organisations, who were holding the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to ransom. These people would not allow bona fide builders and workmen to come in. They were employing their own men. I hope that we can be told at the end of the debate that police inquiries have reached the


stage where prosecutions are pending against some of these people.
No elected Member from Northern Ireland will have any sympathy for these builders who were employing such tactics or those para-military organisations which were employing such builders. It led to the making of outlandish profits of a Chicago-gangster standard. It meant that the para-military organisations supported the builder who carried out the work at his own price and let the property to a tenant who supported the para-military organisations.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Belfast, North who attempted to restrict this type of activity to west Belfast. This happens all over Belfast, as does squatting. Squatting is not confined to one area. There are squatters in Westland Road and in Glencairn and other parts of north Belfast. Equally, there are many squatters in west Belfast. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Housing Executive, aided and abetted by the military and the police, could evict a squatter from Westland Road or Glen-cairn? I do not think it would be possible.

Mr. Carson: I hope the hon. Member will agree that I did not say that this happened only in west Belfast. I said that it happened on a larger scale in the Twinbrook area. I can assure the hon. Member that there have been cases brought before the courts from the Westland Road area.

Mr. Fitt: I accept that. But there have not been any evictions. I have never supported the illegal taking over of public housing in Northern Ireland.
Those who represent Belfast constituencies will be aware of the major public relations campaign taking place to publicise improvement grants. We hear and see it every evening on local radio and on television. We read about it in the local newspapers. We are told that up to a maximum of £2,800 will be paid by the Housing Executive to assist in the rehabilitation and improvement of homes. All I can say is that this money is being spent. The facilities which exist in the Executive are not sufficient to cope with the volume of advertising.
The Housing Executive has a small room on Linenhall Street. There are five

or six chairs on one side of a table and a similar number on the other. I have been in there twice recently. It was like going into a hen roost. There was nothing but cackling and shouting about bathrooms, houses, floors, upstairs windows and roofs. There were people saying "Were you talking about the bathroom?" and being told "No. I was talking about the roof" No one seemed to know what anyone was talking about. I stood back in absolute amazement. I went up to someone who seemed to be a little more senior than the others and asked "How in the name of God do you put up with this?" She said "Oh, Mr. Fitt! I am on the verge of a nervous breakdown."
There should be more private facilities for people who seek grants from the Executive. They are entitled to privacy. They do not want other people sitting listening to them.
After the avalanche of advertising took place last September one person that I know of made an application for an advance. He went to the Housing Executive yesterday morning in Belfast and was told that his application was still being processed. That was six months after the original application had been made. If the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is sincere about wanting people to spend money—people may get a grant but they still spend some of their own—to bring their house up to a fit standard, there should be far better back-up facilities.
I come back to social services. Under Class VI sums of money are being made available to the DHSS for social security and administration. For a number of weeks the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) has made allegations in this House about scroungers. He has claimed that people are prepared to exist on social security rather than work. The hon. Gentleman made allegations against 782 people and the Minister in charge of pensions replied that not one of those allegations could be substantiated.
I understand that a small number of those allegations related to people living in Northern Ireland. I have said in the Stormont Parliament, in the Assembly and in the Executive, as well as on the Floor of this House, that I do not consider there to be any significant number of so-called scroungers in Northern


Ireland. I believe that people will work if work is available. I have been in touch with the. Minister in charge of social security in Northern Ireland and I am hoping to elicit information from him that will support my view that no one in Northern Ireland wants to make himself a burden on the social security system if and when he can get employment.
The benefit allocation scheme was referred to earlier by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) and the hon. Member for Belfast, North. That system came into being as an organ of a Unionist Government in Northern Ireland. It was not a legislative measure passed by this House or by any Labour or Conservative Government. I find it difficult to believe that any section of the community in Great Britain would allow such a measure to be passed.

Mr. McCusker: Will the hon. Gentleman then say who imposed the 50p surcharge on those people who were withholding the rents?

Mr. Fitt: We are at the beginning of a long road and we shall eventually come to the end of it. I was saying that this particular innovation was brought about in the dying days of a Unionist Administration at Stormont. Under that scheme it was permissible to withhold money from social security benefits for those who had stopped paying rents for political reasons, namely, because they were opposed to internment. There were hundreds if not thousands of people in Northern Ireland who were not paying their rents, not because of any political reason, but because they did not have the wherewithal to pay them. They were living in very poor conditions and the reason for their inability to pay was their standard of living, the inequality of opportunity, and the non-availability of employment.
The benefit allocation system overstepped its own regulations. The criteria enabled the benefit allocation system to pay the current week's rent and then to take so much off the arrears. Whether it was by some over-zealous or enthusiastic civil servant I do not know, but all of a sudden we began to realise that the Housing Executive was withholding twice and three times as much as it was entitled to do. If a resident of Hull,

Birmingham, Coventry, Barnsley or Liverpool happened to be in rent arrears with the local authority, what steps would be taken? Would not the local authorities have resorted to the usual process of the law and taken that person to court rather than taking the money out of sickness benefit, or family income supplement, or other social security benefits?
The hon. Member for Belfast, North said he felt that anyone in arrears should be able to go to the Housing Executive and ask "How much did I owe at the end of last week?" That is his entitlement. But in reply to a question I was told that 25 per cent. of the cases referred to benefit allocations from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive had to be returned to the Executive because of erroneous and incorrect information. That information was incorrect not only to the extent of £2·50, or £5 or £7·50, or £10, but was incorrect to the extent of hundreds of pounds. I believe that those who are in debt to the Housing Executive are entitled to ask for a true assessment of their debt.
The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) asked who imposed the penalty of 50p. I shall not evade that question. I was a member of the Northern Ireland Executive between January 1974 and May 1975. We were faced with the possibility that an Executive had been created in Northern Ireland which represented the whole population. Some people did not think so and that is why the Executive was brought to an end. We believed that the Executive was a power-sharing Government and that steps were being taken to end the inequalities and injustices which had existed up to that time. In that situation there was no reason why anyone in Northern Ireland should have refused or stopped paying his just debts to the local authorities.
Although I did not take the decision, my colleagues in the Department did. I believe that the Executive was justified in taking that decision. I shall not be given wholehearted support by the Provisional IRA or the para-militaries in Northern Ireland for having stated yet again that I believe that was justified.
I do not believe that there is any reason now—and this is much more important—for anyone to withhold his rent from the


Housing Executive or from local housing authorities. Internment has gone. It was ended by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary and he must be given credit for that. The situation in Northern Ireland now, unsatisfactory as it may be politically—I hope that it improves, that somehow agreement will be reached and that there will be devolved government—is such that there is no reason now for anyone in Northern Ireland saying "I will not pay my just debts". I believe that everyone should, especially those in receipt of social security for they are being given rent allowances and they can be given rebates to help them out of their difficulties.
On these appropriations, although we have had an opportunity to put forward our points of view—and they may be 11 to one or 10 to two—Ministers will be aware from the volume of representations to them verbally, by telephone and by letter that there is still a very serious social and economic problem in Northern Ireland. I only hope that what is said in this debate will make the present Ministers more aware of the extent of the problem with which we have to grapple in Northern Ireland.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. William Craig: When it comes to spending public money we have to scrutinise the use of it very carefully. We all have the temptation to ask for more to be spent on our special hobbyhorses, though I do not believe that any responsible politician now sees that as a credible form of politics. We are in a new era of politics. There is no longer the business of advocating progress on the basis of people getting something for nothing. Our task is to see that people get value for money and that the people's money is spent wisely.
Sometimes I think that, because of the disturbances in Northern Ireland, we are tempted to let too many things go by without proper scrutiny. I am satisfied that, on the whole, administration in Northern Ireland is bad and that there is a great deal of waste and extravagance. We have already heard about one or two items which highlight it. I am not sure whether it is the system of government which is responsible for it. The system of government is not satisfactory. None of us who are public representatives feels that we can discharge our duties properly

in this respect, but, even with a bad system of government, we should be able to get a better performance, and I want to address my remarks to one area especially, although I am sure that this exercise could be done right across the board of government.
Before I go into the business of being critical it is only fair and proper that I should pay tribute to the hard work and endeavour put in by the Ministers in their respective Departments. I have a constituency interest in it because, in my constituency, we have a wide variety of problems ranging from economic ones to social ones. At all times, the Ministers have been more than ready to look at them, and it is not for want of trying that the performance has not been better. Although Ministers may be dismayed by some of the criticisms which will emerge during the course of this debate they should draw some comfort from the fact that their efforts have not been entirely unavailing.
We recognise, for instance, the generosity shown in salvaging Harland and Wolff. Some may say that too much money was put into propping up that industry, but, whatever be the balance of judgment, it is good to be able to record in this House that the workers and the management of that industry have produced a remarkable improvement in the capacity of the yard. Difficult though the future may be, if this rate of improvement continues we shall feel that what has been clone for Harland and Wolff has been worth while. The same may be said of Short Brothers. The improvement in productivity and efficiency is entirely commendable, and that little firm is surviving exceptionally well in a most difficult market. But it is all dependent upon people giving value for money. I hope that the productivity in each sector will continue to increase.
I return to where I legitimately see some deficiencies. It is in the administration itself. In Northern Ireland, since we have had what is called direct rule, we have seen an enormous proliferation of public bodies of one sort or another. I cannot believe that there is any other small province in the world that has so many bodies, institutions, organisations and committees. It is the biggest and most unproductive industry in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Gow: I should not want the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) to believe Northern Ireland to be alone in having a surfeit of committees, commissions and civil servants presiding over its affairs. We on this side of the Irish Channel suffer precisely the same disease.

Mr. Craig: I was not unaware of that, but I suggest that we head the league.
During Question Time today I drew attention to the remarkable £6·5 million which the Housing Executive had allowed to fall into arrears in rents and rates. If we look at public bodies as a whole in Northern Ireland—the electricity service, the rating division, the Gas Board and the Housing Executive—we see that the total sum of money in arrears at the end of the financial year 1975–76 was £30·2 million. If the expenditure of public money is of the importance that we are told by the Government today any Administration which sits back and allows that amount of debt to accrue is worthy of censure. It has been going on for too long. In the financial year 1973–74 the amount was £20·1 million. In 1974–75 it was £25·3 million. As I say, in 1975–76 it was £30·2 million, and the trend is still upwards.
I was most dismayed when the Minister, in terms of the Housing Executive, felt that he could justify the change to the BAB system. I believe that, as a result, the arrears in the Housing Executive will continue to escalate. It is not a system which imposes the undue hardship that is alleged. It is a system which says to people "If you find that hurting too hard, go to the Housing Executive and enter into a voluntary agreement". By doing that, a person immediately qualifies himself for rent and rate rebates. In fact, it was the first thing to start making people think in terms of entering into a voluntary agreement. It is dangerous to be a prophet in these matters, but I say with some confidence that, as a result of the Government's decision, the Housing Executive is on to a hiding to nothing.
The Minister should think not only of what we in Parliament are saying about it. What about the thousands of people who, week in and week out, have to make sacrifices to pay their rents? Now, when I am told that these arrears are not resulting in some reduction in the standard of services to these people,

I find it difficult to believe. The Housing Executive cannot be the same with £6·5 million arrears. It is bound to curtail or to cut back on something, unless, unbeknown to the rest of us, the Government have dumped a nice little subsidy in by the back door, which I doubt. All elected representatives from Northern Ireland will support me when I say that we want to see a much more determined effort being made to deal with the massive sums there are in arrears.
I shall concentrate my remarks on housing. At the outset I welcome the Minister's statement of 13th December that redirects the emphasis on housing towards Belfast. In no way do I doubt the Minister's sincerity, but I doubt the credibility of the policy. There is talk about spending £136 million over the next five years. Is that possible? If we bear in mind the performance of recent years, there is not a snowball's chance in the hot place of doing that. Each year we have examined the Housing Executive's performance to ascertain the number of completions. Each year there has been an all-time low. We are told that the bottom of the curve has been reached, but the next year we find that the number of completions has declined even further. I make the prophecy that completion rates for the present year will reach another all-time low.
In the face of that record, are the Belfast people going to believe that a massive facelift can be implemented? The Minister will know that in my constituency there is an acute problem. Despair is growing as a result of the increasing delays in the building and finalising of housing schemes. Till something is done that provides evidence that results are being obtained, there is not the slightest use of setting grandiose targets, as the people will become even more disillusioned.
I hope that the Minister's steering committee may be able to do something to tackle the deficiencies that obviously exist in the present set-up. Security presents a problem for the Housing Executive in Belfast but I am not prepared for it to become the scapegoat to cover the present lack of performance. The steering committee, chaired by the Minister, might be able to do something, but I am pessimistic, because the committee seems to be composed of the same old faces,


the same people who have failed abysmally in the past few years to get anything done. I am afraid that the new committee will be merely another cog in the wheel of bureaucracy, another committee to report, another time-consuming body, another mini-Housing Executive. I ask the Minister to chew the matter over to see whether he can make it a more convincing and credible body.
I welcome the Minister's statement about encouraging home ownership. I welcome the fact that he will encourage option mortgage schemes and will help as many tenants as possible to become home owners. However, I have received from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive nothing that leads me to the view that it believes in such a policy. I know that at Larne it has embarked upon a new equity share scheme, which I hope will be extended to other areas, but that is only toying with the problem. One of the weaknesses in the Northern Ireland set-up is the very small percentage of home owners in the community. Ministers should initiate an urgent crash programme. There are difficulties about taking houses out of the public stock to create home ownership, but I believe that a proper balance can be struck. In doing so, we can help the people and relieve the Housing Executive of an enormous maintenance burden.
My interest in home ownership does not arise merely from my wish to see tenants purchasing their own houses. I want to see a much more dynamic policy that will enable people to build their own houses or to buy them from new. I accept that there are problems. As we have disrupted the whole administrative machine of Northern Ireland and we have no adequate planning system. The character of no area can be guaranteed. This is an argument that has been advanced by the Polglass scheme. An inquiry has been set up to justify a massive breach of the stop line policy. That sort of decision is necessary if we are to have a planned area with character that people can rely on and invest in with confidence. No one is going to go out of his way to build a house only to find, through the ineptitude of bureaucracy, that a slaughterhouse is positioned not too far away or that inferior housing is being provided in the area.
I should like to see the Government reviewing their strategy and having more expertise in their planning. There are far too many people performing a planning function in Northern Ireland who are no better qualified to do so than I am.
What is happening about Queen's University? Are we to have a planning department in the university? Are the Government continuing with their bursary scheme? I understand from the university that the Government are likely to withdraw their assistance from what I believe to be an important facility—namely, providing the planning skills that we need.
I should like to see a greater emphasis placed on the housing mix. I am now talking about the public sector. Are we doing enough for our own people? Are we building the right sort of housing? I am thinking of my experience in East Belfast as we start to rebuild the Newtownards Road end. I believe that people are best housed in ground floor conditions. There is not enough flexibility in the sort of housing that is being built to allow us to get the maximum out of our developments to assist old people. There could be much greater variations of the upstairs portions to assist families, leaving the downstairs portions for old people.
We all welcome the grants that are now available for home improvements, but is the system not too complicated for most people? It is a ponderous system of form filling. Even most lawyers find it a problem to wade their way through the system. Surely we do not need elaborate bills of quantity and copies of drawing that are so confusing to the ordinary applicant. The system should be capable of being simplified.
I understand from applicants in my constituency that once a grant has been approved there is great difficulty in getting a small builder to undertake the work without advance payment. Is it possible for the Department to consider some system of part-payment as work progresses? I well understand that in these days small builders need a steady cash flow, but is it possible for the Department to devise some way of guiding people to a suitable builder for the job that is in hand? It would probably be embarrassing for those


who are dishing out grants to take the responsibility of suggesting who should do the building, but there is a real need in my constituency for some device to be made available to those who need suitable builders to undertake building works.
I have concentrated on housing because I believe that is at the root of any sound, healthy community. It is a source of dismay to me that Northern Ireland, which in years gone by was making so much progress, should find itself losing ground every year in this respect. The troubles violence and instability of the political system are no excuse. I believe that a much better record is within our means, but it will not be reached till we have a whole new look at who is to be responsible for housing.
In retrospect, it was clearly a grave mistake to divorce public sector building from the local authorities. They were, clearly, the best people to decide what was needed for the character of their own districts. The housing Trust, as an independent agency, worked far more efficiently than the Housing Executive, and benefited from its liasion and relationship with local authorities. The sooner that the Housing Executive is dispensed with in its present form and elected representatives take over responsibility for directing their own affairs the better we shall be able to commend the Minister on future appropriation orders, if the Government last long enough to bring in another such order.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I agree entirely with the first statement made by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) that it is our duty in this House to question every piece of paper which comes before us involving the spending of such huge sums of money as are laid out in this order.
I also take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said about housing. We are all aware that, whether in Belfast or London, Glasgow or Cardiff, bad housing and urban deprivation inevitably bring a rash of hooliganism and vandalism which, in Northern Ireland, turns into what we now call terrorism. I think that it could lap into some of our cities on this side of the Irish Sea. Indeed, it has done

just that in Glasgow with its very high murder rate since the end of last year.
The order concerns the spending of £500 million of public money and the ability of the Department of Finance to raise a further £275 million. These are vast sums by anyone's standards. I shall concentrate my remarks on two references to Class II expenditure. In one instance, so accurate is the order that the amount to be spent on industrial training, industrial relations and other labour market services has been reduced by £42,600. No doubt, for its efforts in reaching such a remarkable achievement the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor General is also to be docked.

Mr. Powell: That figure represents a decrease in the appropriations-in-aid. That is to say, an extra £42,000 will be required.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his guidance. I was giving credit where no credit was due.
The main Class II expenditure to which I want to turn appears on page 6:
For expenditure by the Department of Commerce on provision of land and buildings, selective assistance to industry and shipbuilding, including the repayment to the Consolidated Fund of certain issues made from it to the Capital Purposes Fund, £4l,022.000.
I take that figure because it includes selective assistance to the shipbuilding industry and to industry generally. It gives me the opportunity to ask the Minister to tell us more about the way the money is to be spent and, in particular, about the Government's overall industrial strategy for the Province.
Earlier today we had Northern Ireland Questions. The Minister of State told us that unemployment in the Province was now running at 10·7 per cent. of the population. That is approximately 5 per cent. more than the United Kingdom average. I know that unemployment is variable in the sense that it is not made up of one group of people who have lost jobs in one sector. In Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, jobs have been lost in various industries not only for cyclical reasons but because of the recession which has affected the rest of the United Kingdom and Western Europe.
It is also true that people are not perhaps anxious to go back to work unless the conditions and wages offered are better than the money they can get from social security. Whether one calls that abuse or common sense is a matter which I leave to others. Be that as it may, the fact is that people do not necessarily rush into any job that is available simply because it is available. They ask themselves a number of qualifying questions before accepting them.
Therefore, when I see grants for assistance to industry and shipbuilding, to the Department of Manpower Services and so on, I ask myself the question: what is the Government's overall attitude to unemployment? Indeed, what is their industrial strategy?
We are all aware that Ulster is going through as bad a recession, if not worse, as most parts of the United Kingdom. Some hon. Members may have seen an article in the Financial Times by Mr. Giles Merritt headed "Britain's poor relation" In that article he sets out the amount of financial assistance that the Province has received. Among the facts which he used to illustrate the overall argument in his article were that before 1969 Northern Ireland enjoyed a higher growth rate than the rest of the United Kingdom, that it now has an active work force of only 36 per cent. of its 1½ million population compared with 43 per cent. for the rest of the United Kingdom, that public spending per head was higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom, and that social security took about 24 per cent. of Ulster's public budget. Between the end of the war and 1976, some 72,000 new jobs were created in the Province. But from now on a much greater creation of new jobs will be needed. Indeed, I want to come to that figure later.
Mr. Merritt made the point that the engineering production index, which in the spring of 1967 stood at 112, now stands at 100—its 1963 level. Lastly, he made the point that the British subvention had risen from £313 million in 1973–74 to £600 million in 1976.
One might say that it is not the lack of public money which is causing Northern Ireland's difficulties. One might also argue that, looking at those figures, unemployment, which seems to be chronic

in the Province, is now coupled with a falling-off in the productive capacity of manufacturing industry. I think that the Secretary of State was right in his foreword to the report by Dr. Quigley when he said that there were "long-term structural weaknesses" in the economy.
On the other hand, in the Minister of State's answer to me today he made it clear that the Government are not sitting back and letting the school leavers and younger members of the work force simply stay on the dole but are providing the training centres that will make sure that that work force will be valuable when the opportunities arise for it to be put to work. I think that all of us have said many times how much we know and appreciate the skills of Ulstermen. Reference has been made to Harland and Wolff, a world-wide name, to Short Brothers and Harland and so on. All the same, at the moment Ulster is uncertain about its industrial and economic future. I hope, therefore, that I may be allowed to contribute a few remarks on the subject.
If the Secretary of State is right—I think he is—and there is long-term structural weakness in the economy, one might wonder why, since Dr. Quigley's report came out in September 1976, the Government have been so remiss in not making any statement about their intention over that report. The Minister will know that the shipbuilding industry is given a special pride of place in what Dr. Quigley has to say. He goes so far as to say that, unless the industry's future can be given rather more certainty than appears to exist at present, planning the economy of Northern Ireland will be very difficult.
In those circumstances, can the Minister say something more about this £41 million? Will he perhaps follow up the remark by Mr. Giles Merritt in his article that the pressures on the Secretary of State include the need to come forward with proposals for the Harland and Wolff shipyard by the early Spring? I had the good fortune to hear the Chairman of Short's, Sir George Leach, speak in this House earlier this week. As the right hon. Member for Belfast, East said, Sir George pointed out that Short's is doing remarkably well, but he made the point, which has been stressed more than once during the passage of the Aircraft and


Shipbuilding Industries Bill, that Short's is concerned about being outside the great grouping of the airframe industry which is about to take place.
Indeed, Sir George went so far as to wonder whether the insularity which the company now has would cause it to fall out of the aircraft industry altogether. He saw no sign of that so far, but clearly that concern was in his mind, as indeed was the concern that finding itself part of a Province which lacked a Government and perhaps the administrative institutions possessed by other regions would lead its customers to wonder whether Short's was really as close to the British Government in every sense as other aircraft companies, both in the test of the United Kingdom and in Western Europe, and whether that might affect its future. Again, he could see no sign of it, but the doubt is there. Therefore, it behoves the Minister to say something on the matter.
All of us who heard the Minister of State, Department of Industry talking about the money to be provided for British shipbuilding were curious that Harland and Wolff had to be left out. The right hon. Member for Belfast, East raised this matter and received an ambiguous answer about how exactly Harland and Wolff would be treated. I stress these two companies because they are both State-owned and important employers of labour.
I want to enlarge the point to encompass the industrial structure of the Province. It is not for me tonight to attempt to go through the Quigley Report. It is a remarkable piece of work. It is detailed. Its analytical breakdown deserves the study of all of us, and I hope that time will be found for a debate on it, and on it alone. However, it is incredible that a report which was once held up as the economic strategy document that the Government had been waiting for should now, apparently, be pigeon-holed and nothing more said about it.
Dr. Quigley and his committee put forward their ideas about the future of Northern Ireland's industry. They do not mince their words. They say quite simply that action must be taken, that if we think of United Kingdom equiva-

lence—and why should we not?—135,000 new jobs must be created in the Province by 1980. The committee sets out various tax suggestions to encourage investment in the Province, such as a tax holiday on export profits and other tax concessions. It suggests also an increase from 40 to 60 per cent. in the maximum capital grant.
All the suggestions of the committee are worthy of consideration, and all have at their root the need to encourage investment and to encourage foreign companies to think of Northern Ireland as somewhere that it is worth putting up a factory and employing the work force.
Fortunately, on page 32, the committee says:
The best package that can be offered in Northern Ireland is still better than in the Assisted Areas in Great Britain.
That at least is something, but bearing in mind the fact that Northern Ireland has to carry the scourge of terrorist violence, which is enough to put many investors off, the Government should be saying whether they plan extra assistance for the Province.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will forgive me for mentioning one other suggestion that the committee puts forward. On page 57 of its report it says:
We suggest that Northern Ireland should be 'adopted' by the EEC as a region with special problems, deserving sharply focused study and attention and a range of carefully concerted measures.
I doubt whether people in Northern Ireland mind where the assistance comes from. The suggestion is at least worth careful consideration by the Government.
I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) said about the companies which, we have heard, will either be increasing their investment in the Province or will be setting up there. I should like the Minister also to say what success the Northern Ireland Development Agency has had in attracting new business and how many new jobs can be directly traced to its efforts.
The right hon. Member for Belfast, East said that Northern Ireland is plagued with committees, study groups and all sorts of do-gooding organisations. No doubt he is right—he knows the Province much better than I do—but


the NIDA at one stage sounded like an institution which would be of great assistance both in creating new industry and in rescuing companies in danger. Since then we have heard little about it, and I shall be grateful if the Minister will tell us something.
Lastly, can the Minister say something about the activities of the Northern Ireland Agent in London? I asked the Library for a copy of his annual report, but apparently there is no such document. I understand that Northern Ireland is fortunate enough to have offices not only in London but in Western Europe and even in Japan. Have those offices really added either to the exports from the Province or to the inflow of investment and new industry which certain other regions have enjoyed?
I think, for example, of the Japanese zip fastener factory at Bridgend in Wales and wonder why it was not attracted to Northern Ireland. It is the type of industry that might provide the right employment in the Province. But be that as it may—and no doubt there are good reasons why that company did not go to Northern Ireland—I should like to know just how successful the Northern Ireland Development Agency has been.
I end by reminding the Minister of the points that Dr. Quigley set out as being the conditions for development in the Province:
First, a swift return to the kind of environment which creates business confidence.
I want to say how much I admire the business men in the Province who go about their business as if the terrorists did not exist and as if the present campaign against them was not proceeding. I hope that the Government will give business men all protection possible.
The other conditions were set out as follows:
Second, a sustained upturn in the national economy.
We must all wish for that.
Third, the introduction of measures of the kind discussed in this Report, to retain Northern Ireland's competitive position in a purely economic sense …
Fourth, finding means of releasing the dormant initiative of the people and arousing interest and participation in a strategy for growth.
I fear that the Government will take no action or will take action too late. I

fear, too, that Northern Ireland will be allowed to become an industrial backwater of the rest of the United Kingdom. Perhaps my fears are groundless, but while the Government say nothing about Dr. Quigley's report, while they produce no Green Paper, let alone a White Paper, my fears will continue.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: There are many aspects of the order which have already been touched upon this evening. I shall restrict myself mainly to that part of it which deals with agriculture in Northern Ireland and specifically with the remoteness grant which we have enjoyed for many years. This is a relatively small sum of money which in the past three years has been running at £1·9 million per year. It is decided triennially. The period runs out on 31st March of this year.
The grant has been extremely useful in a very large number of small ways in Northern Ireland. It has been used for cattle and seed headage payments in an attempt to have more even marketing throughout the year. It has been used for seed potato virus testing. It has been used for orchard grubbing. It has been used for silage payments. It has been used as an excess on top of the fencing grant. It was used at one time to establish the lowland cow breeding herd in Northern Ireland. That herd was established two years before a similar scheme came into being this side of the Irish Sea.
Above all, the grant has been used to support the Northern Ireland Agricultural Trust, which has carried out many projects in Northern Ireland which have usually been at the frontiers of agricultural knowledge. I regret to say that not all of these projects have been successful. Some should not have been embarked upon at all, perhaps. Some which were embarked upon, such as the grass-drying plant in my constituency, were becoming relatively successful when the vast increase in oil prices rendered the whole thing totally uneconomic. However, it was still worth doing because it was within a hair's breadth of success and would have been a success had it not been for the increase in the price of fuel oils.
For all these reasons, I should like the Minister to tell us in his reply whether


it is intended that this aspect of agricultural support will continue for Northern Ireland. I submit that it must be continued. It is vital to the long-term welfare of the agricultural community that these small schemes, and especially the money that is given to the Agricultural Trust and has been given to it in past years, should continue in the future.
We should like to know, if possible, what the position will be for the next three years. I suggest to the Minister that this evening is as good a time as any for him to tell the House and the people of Northern Ireland what the position will be; or, if it is decided that the remoteness grant will not be continued, will he tell us how the money that came to Northern Ireland agriculture by means of the remoteness grant in the past will be replaced to agriculture in the future?
I had intended to say a few words about the Meat Industry Employment Scheme in Northern Ireland, which is important to the agricultural industry there. However, after the very helpful reply that I received from the Minister this afternoon I have decided to leave well enough alone and hope that the promise that was held out in his reply will be fulfilled.
Next, I should like to speak for a few moments about the seed potato industry and, indeed, about the potato crop in Northern Ireland. The Minister will be aware that, while Great Britain suffered from drought and from very poor growing conditions for the potato crop in the past two years, the same was not true of Northern Ireland to anything like the same extent. This led to more reasonable crops and certainly to very excellent returns to the growers.
I believe that that is leading many people to expand their production and their acreage in a way that I consider to be most foolish from my experience of this very capricious crop. I should like the Minister to draw the attention of the farmers in Northern Ireland who grow this crop to the end result of overproduction, because there is, to say the least, a very inelastic demand for potatoes, and if things go wrong this year—all that needs to go wrong is for us to have a normal year—we shall be faced with a very large tonnage of potatoes lying

in Northern Ireland with no market for them. That will bring great hardship for those who foolishly embark upon increased production and especially to newcomers to growing this crop, of whom there are many this year.
I hope that the Minister will give full publicity to the inherent dangers of over-production of potatoes. I know that publicity has been given to this already, but I believe that it has not sunk in to the necessary extent to avoid disaster and long-term deleterious effects on the production of this crop in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) talked about angling. He confessed that he—foolish man—is not an angler. I am. I have fished for trout, for salmon and for all sorts of fish since I was about six. If my hon. Friend comes and stays with me for a couple of days, I will teach him to fish.
I should like to say a few things about the anglers of Northern Ireland for whom the Department of Agriculture bears a responsibility. I think that there is no one in the House who knows more about angling than myself. The complexity of the subject is appalling. It looks very simple at first sight, but a closer study convinces one of its complexity and there are more and more highways and byways and little streams to get lost in than one could believe possible.
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that licence fees have been increased this year. I live in the Foyle area. I consider that the fishing there is first-rate. Up to now it has been very cheap, and it is still very cheap really. However there is one aspect of it to which the Minister should give his attention. This is the fact that for the first time fishing for freshwater trout in the Foyle stream requires a licence. I do not think that that is justified, because the trout fishing there is very much a by-product of the salmon and sea trout fishing.
The Minister knows perfectly well that the Foyle Commission has never spent any money on trout farming. The trout that exist in the rivers and streams there are purely "wild" trout which receive no care from anyone. They exist by the grace of God more than by anything that has been done for them by man. Because of this, I cannot see any justification for


imposing licences on people who fish for trout. Whether the Minister knows it or not, the average trout fisherman fishes one or two days a year or a few evenings. The main sport is salmon fishing, and the fishermen all go after salmon when they appear in the river. I do not believe that imposing a trout licence will do anything at all to help the salmon fisheries, the angling community or the very poor relations that exist between the Foyle Fisheries Commission and anglers in the Foyle area.
I draw the Minister's attention to the difficulties facing the salmon fisheries in the Foyle. I remember as a youth that the continual cry among anglers was that there was too much netting, too much pollution, too little protection and too much poaching. The angling community said that for more than 30 years. Then the Foyle Fisheries Commission brought in some Canadian experts to carry out a very careful investigation. After a couple of years the experts reported. They said that perhaps too many fish were being taken by netting and perhaps there was too much pollution, not enough protection and too much poaching. The anglers had been saying that all my life. I do not think that the commission was justified in bringing in those men, and the general opinion is that it was simply a whitewashing job. All they did was to tell the Commission what any person with the slightest common sense could have told it by going down to the river and having a look.
The Fisheries Commission is a cross-border body. Lawlessness has appeared on the Foyle system and the netting is appalling. I ask the Minister to take on board the fact that it is the duty of the law enforcement bodies in Northern Ireland to support the Foyle Commission. There have been cases recently of bailiffs being fired upon by poachers. These people should be tracked down and gaoled, otherwise it will be only a matter of time before someone gets killed. No one wants to see that sort of incident in this very rich fishery, which is faced with many problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh referred to the good work done by the Ministry in providing angling in Northern Ireland. That is true, but only up to a point. If the Ministry is providing this sort of angling, one must look

at the whole angling scene and not at that which is restricted to still water lakes. We must make some attempt to find out whether there is some way in which angling in Northern Ireland could be brought under, perhaps not central control, but control by the people who actually use the facilities.
Also, perhaps there could be some way in which public money could be made available to anglers in Northern Ireland in the same way as it is made available to other sports and recreations. Colossal payments are made to other sporting bodies, but not to the angling community or to other field sports. Why should not anglers enjoy public money as well? Angling is a sport in which large numbers of people participate. One has only to go out at the weekend to see that there are very many people fishing in the rivers and lakes.
There seems to be a very great dragging of feet in regard to pollution. There was a very careful examination of the Castle River, a small river in my constituency. Is that formal investigation to be followed up, particularly in relation to farm pollution? The law relating to farm pollution must be tightened up and some effort made to meet the problems there.
Close to my home is the Caugh Hill filter-house, which is the main filter-house for Londonderry city. It washes its filters several times a day and the resultant washes go straight into the river. Originally, with the old filter house, there were settlement beds, but these seem to have fallen into disuse. The new filter-house has been going several years and it is time something was done about it to ensure that it complies with the legal requirements. If a private individual were behaving in this manner, he would soon be taken to task.
The Ministry will be aware that the bounty on foxes has been taken off in Northern Ireland. As a result, there are many foxes which cause a great deal of damage to farms. This aspect should be looked at again with a view to reducing the number of foxes in Northern Ireland. Also, something must be done about killer dogs in Northern Ireland. I receive a tremendous amount of mail regularly from farmers who suffer from the problem of these dogs. There seems to be no


real urgency in the efforts to tighten up the law here.
I and my hon. Friends have noted that as a result of very frosty conditions this year there has been a tremendous breakup of road surfaces all over Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will assure us that necessary funds will be made available to repair the damage before it gets any worse.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: I shall concentrate on Class V in the Appropriation Order, and in passing I shall touch on Classes VIII and IX. We heard a little time ago that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive was reviewing its points scheme. All hon. Members from Northern Ireland regard this revision as a very important undertaking. I would like to know when the Housing Executive hopes to produce its amended scheme. I hope that when the new scheme comes out it will reflect the feelings expressed by United Ulster Unionists at Westminster.
I wish to raise the question of the plight of elderly people who live in homes that are far too large for their needs in the twilight of their lives. Because of the present points scheme there is a real difficulty in getting elderly people re-houses, and it is very painful to watch elderly folk trying to negotiate not just one staircase but two or three when their health is not at all suited to the kind of building in which they live.
I urge the Minister to ponder on the possibility of the Housing Executive buying such houses and not reletting them, because that is an abuse of public funds, but widening the scope of home purchase. I am quite sure that that kind of approach would facilitate the needs not only of elderly people but those of young families as well who would be encouraged to own their own homes. This might be done by employing an ownership scheme such as the one which now exists in Larne. We must look again at the plight of elderly people who either own or rent homes that are too large, and this must be done quickly.
That leads me to the point about the housing mix. In the immediate post-war years, the percentage of old-age pensioner accommodation on the average

estate was about 3 per cent. Today, the demand in any given area is much higher than that. Again, I underscore what my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) has said about housing mix.
I return to a point which I raised yesterday morning in Committee—the comparison of public sector house-building costs in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It was interesting to hear the comments of an hon. Member from the official Opposition when he stated that, in his estimation, a house on this side of the Irish Sea could be built for less than£8,000. I think he may have been over-optimistic, but I would like comparisons to be published as quickly as possible because I fear that the heading in one of yesterday's newspapers was not far from the truth in saying that the Housing Executive was being taken for a ride to the cleaners. This is public money, our money, and we have the responsibility to ensure that it is being deployed in the best possible way.
There is also the possible overstaffing of the Housing Executive's premises and offices at College Square East. It would be interesting and helpful to know the number of people employed there, the categories into which they fit and the salaries paid in those respective categories. I would be disappointed if we could not immediately take steps to prune the size of that part of the organisation, which would be of great benefit not only to administration but in releasing a not inconsequential amount of money for house repair, house building or whatever else.
I believe that much of the work, which is spread over far too large a number of people in those premises of the Housing Executive, could be done far more expeditiously by district officers. This would, for example, also help in the matter raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) when he referred to the debacle which he witnessed in the home improvement scheme. I am sure that district officers could be called in aid to assist in this kind of work.
There is also the question of the unsuitability of some houses in Belfast for use as flats. There is no existing legislation which can preclude the use of certain houses as flats. I believe that if this


problem is not tackled in the near future it will exacerbate the deterioration in the fabric of houses in the Belfast area. I think of the Lisburn Road and Ormeau Road areas in my constituency. There, many small houses of the type that we call two-up, two-down, with a small kitchen and perhaps a bathroom stuck in the middle, are being used to house eight, nine and sometimes 10 people, mainly students.
I recognise that students must have somewhere to live, but it must also be recognised that most of them do not have a commitment to the area in which they reside for three or four years and that, because of the overpopulation of these houses, the fabric of the conurbation begins to reflect the lack of concern and of commitment I ask the Government to consider introducing in the very near future certain basic amenities and certain basic proportions to be met before they will allow particular houses to be used as flats.
I turn now to the question of comprehensive redevelopment areas. Much has been said in this debate and in previous debates about delays in getting redevelopment areas under way. Yet greater delay is experienced in dealing with what are known as comprehensive redevelopment areas, where in time not only will old houses be replaced by new but where there are industries and a need for the realignment of roads and so on. I am thinking of one area in particular, the Woodstock Road area, which is amongst the worst housing areas in the whole of Northern Ireland. Yet there is still an unnecessary delay in redeveloping it.
We are told that it is a comprehensive area, but what is the reason for the difficulty in aligning the thoughts of Belfast Council, which is always involved in comprehensive area development, and those of the Housing Executive? The people there know what they need and want. They have conveyed as much clearly to both Belfast Council and the Housing Executive, yet there is still further delay in the scheme. I ask the Minister to study the problem and perhaps, at an early stage, resolve it.
Before I leave the housing question I want to state, in the interests of fairness, that, although much has been said about the difficulties of housing in Northern Ireland, we should record that Northern

Ireland's production of new homes since the inception of the State compares very favourably with the production of new homes in any other area of the United Kingdom. We must state clearly that Stormont Governments in past years played a very responsible rôle in housing provision.
If the inner city is now found to be in a dreadful situation, that in some ways can be traced to there being the kind of industry which obtained at the turn of the nineteenth century and to the kind of immediate housing needed for the textile industry. It is not by any stretch of the imagination the fault of past Stormont Governments. I believe that their housing record is very good, and we should not allow that point to pass by default.
I turn now to Class IX. I understand that some 2,522 blind people are registered in Northern Ireland. They have a particular problem when it comes to paying the charges for directory inquiries. I understand that a new charge has been levied quite recently for the use of the directory inquiry service. Obviously, blind people who have to use the telephone find themselves very much disadvantaged. I am told that the charge is about 12p. If that is so, one can imagine the sizeable bills of blind people who have to use the service. Will the Minister look at the possibility of having the directory inquiry service charge waived in the case of blind persons? I do not pretend that I am able to spell out in every detail how the hon. Gentleman could do that and at the same time eliminate the possibility of abuse, but I believe that it is something to which he should address his mind. It would certainly be appreciated by blind people in Northern Ireland.
I turn now to Class VIII. The Minister will have heard the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) when he mentioned removing the £10,000 grant given in past years which helped to keep in being the educational guidance service for adults. My hon. Friend also very wisely referred to the removal of an agency in Belfast that was very useful in the past, and pointed out that the agency has not been replaced.
I doubt whether the functions now undertaken by the education guidance 


service for adults will be undertaken by any replacement agency, in which case the education system of Northern Ireland will be the more impoverished. I urge the Minister to look carefully at this mattter before he or the Secretary of State makes up his mind. I hope he will assure us that the matter will receive the attention it merits.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), during their fleeting appearances in the Chamber in this debate, stated yet again the limitations normally imposed on us on these occasions, even when dealing with an order as important as this one.
Nevertheless, I and my colleagues were delighted that the two hon. Gentlemen I have mentioned availed themselves of the opportunity to participate in the debate. I hope that they will be generous enough to recognise that the comparative freedom that we have in this evening's timetable is due to the fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends voted against the timetable motion and thereby created this opportunity for them. I hope that when they read these words they will regard this as clear evidence that benefits did accrue to Northern Ireland in that way and in many other ways, and consequently that when great decisions of this kind are taken in future they will pay heed to our advice and guidance and join us.
I want to deal briefly with the question of drainage, which is referred to in Part I, Class I, No. 5. I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has said in regard to major operations. As he has indicated, we have a common interest in the basin of the River Lagan. Many of my constituents and constituents of my right hon. Friend have suffered as a result of the neglect of that waterway.
I refer specifically to an item of which the Minister will be aware because I have had correspondence with him on the subject. The reason why I raise it this evening is that somewhere along the line matters have got out of hand. I refer to the Flush River Urban Drainage Scheme, to use the title allocated by the

Department of Agriculture. The Minister has done his best to be helpful in this matter, but somehow or other his agents on the spot have fallen down on the job
Residents of an estate known as Thistlemount Park are suffering because their properties are being flooded. They have been flooded on occasions in the past, but the situation has been greatly aggravated as a result of the activities of the Department of the Environment, which is constructing a new roadway running parallel to the river. A most extraordinary arrangement has been arrived at whereby the stream has been piped very efficiently both upstream and downstream of these properties but the section of the stream at the rear of the properties has been left open.
I do not see the justification or the sense in that. It is all very well for the Department responsible to say that piping the stream through Thistlemount Park is unnecessary for drainage, but the very title given to that scheme—the Flush River Urban Drainage Scheme—clearly refers to something that is no longer agricultural drainage. The Minister stated in a letter—and I agree with him wholeheartedly—that this is a new urban drainage scheme. Storm water will inevitably flow from the waterway because there is no other outlet for it.
Being rather ignorant on technical matters, I consulted some of the engineers on the spot. I suggested that, rather than divert the stream, it might be simpler to take it in a straight line and pipe it all the way. But they knew better. The engineers said that they would divert it downstream of these properties and that this would help matters. It is not unknown for hon. Members in this House even to attempt to make rivers flow uphill. I am not certain whether that is intended in this case, but I am certain that the danger to these properties has been increased. I hope that I shall have the co-operation and assistance of the Minister on this subject in the not-too-distant future.
I turn now to Class IV dealing with Department of the Environment expenditure on roads. I wholeheartedly agree with the suggestion that we really need to come to sensible working arrangements with road service representatives in our


own localities. I have a very good working arrangement with the officer in charge of most of the area of my constituency, but other areas are nowhere near as good. I am afraid that the channels of communication extend, as has already been described, all the way from Westminster across Whitehall to Stormont Castle and then down the chain of command and that the reverse is the case when the reply is sent on its way. It would be in the interests of the Minister and his colleagues to clear from their desks all this nonsense. It would make for far greater efficiency and greater speed in dealing with these matters. It has worked successfully with other Government Departments and I cannot see why we could not safely embark on this experiment.
Of course the Minister wants a long-term answer, and I and my hon. Friends are proposing a short-term answer. The real answer is to restore the missing upper tier of local government, and then the Minister and all of us would be absolved of these problems because they would be dealt with by representatives who were elected to discharge their duty, as would happen in Great Britain or anywhere else. The 12 Northern Ireland Members—or, at least, the 11 of us who attend the House—are at present acting as upper-tier local councillors as well as Members of Parliament. That is why we all apologise for overloading the Minister's "In" tray. It is an unavoidable duty which we have to discharge in the interests of our constituents.
I turn now to a matter that the Minister of State, who has just entered the Chamber, will remember from his time at the Department of the Environment, namely, the proposed Shore Road-M2 extension. The last time he was good enough to give me an estimate, the cost was approaching £3 million. It has been said that money has been earmarked for the infilling operation as a start to the scheme, but I am dreadfully worried that we may get no further than the infilling operation.
That operation, as the Minister of State knows very well, would completely spoil the environment of that area of Whitehouse Park. I plead with the Government to take another look at this and to ensure that if they embark on this scheme—which I do not support because

I have never seen the necessity for it—they must make absolutely sure that the resources are there to complete the scheme and that we are not left with a white elephant. Since it is on the shoreline, perhaps it would be more appropriate to describe it as a stranded whale
I wish to refer to another vexed aspect of the question of roads, this time involving the problem of access to Ballycort Gardens in Ballyclare, Co. Antrim. The problem arises from the fact that houses in a privately-owned estate were purchased on the understanding that the access would be from what was then the main road. At some stage, some planner somewhere in a back room decided that the only access should be blocked up and a new access made through an adjacent housing estate.
I hasten to assure the Minister that there is no element of snobbery in this controversy. It is not in the interest of any of the residents of either estate that the whole volume of traffic, not only of residents' vehicles but of service vehicles which have to go to the houses, should he channelled through a comparatively narrow road. It is wrong to restrict the residents to one access. I hope that now that the legal details have been supplied to the Department, which I admit were not in its possession when it made the decision, reason and common sense will prevail in the matter.
I wish now to turn to Class IX dealing with health and social services. The sum of £12·75 million has been set aside for the development of various institutions and health and social service functions with a projected sum of £102 million on account. I hope I am right in assuming that part of that sum will provide for the preparation of plans for new hospitals. I am thinking of the promised new area acute hospital for Antrim. When we last debated these matters it was felt by all of us at the time that, because of the cutback in capital expenditure, there might be a delay of about 10 or 12 years in the building of the hospital. Now, it fortunately appears that these estimates were on the pessimistic side and we can expect planning operations to begin in the near future.
On 8th January 1976 the strategic planning team set up by the Northern Health Services Board made a firm


recommendation that the new acute general hospital should be sited in the town of Antrim. It set this out on page 99 of the report and gave the very sound reasons on which it based its decision. Those reasons have not been demolished by any of those who on emotional grounds have sought to change the minds of the Minister and the Department.
Unfortunately, a great deal of resentment has been caused by the Northern Board appearing to reject the siting recommendation and instead opting for the rival centre of the town of Ballymena. I do not question the right of the board to make this decision—that, presumably, is what it exists to do—but it is curious, is it not, that the decision was reached by the board at a time when it consisted of about 18 members from the northern part of Co. Antrim, and only 11 members representing three constituencies—the northern part of Belfast, the southern part of Londonderry and most of south Antrim?
It seemed curious that there was then not one representative on the board from the general area of Antrim town, in which the new hospital was to have been sited. It is therefore scarcely surprising that they opted for the area in which most of them resided and in which most of their interests lay. I gather that the board may now be having second thoughts. I hope that it will come to a much wiser decision, but I am confident that the Minister's noble Friend will discount and resist any biased views in making his final decision. It will be his decision ultimately, taken in the light of what is in the best interests of all the people in the area which the hospital is designed to serve.
I do not support the hysterical demands which have been made as a result of the controversy for the abolition of that hospital board and various other boards, so that their functions may be taken over by the Department of Health and Social Services. That would merely add to dislocation and create all sorts of chaos. In my opinion—an opinion which is shared by my right hon. and hon. Friends—the proper remedy would be the re-establishment of responsible democratic control of such bodies. I believe that that could best be achieved by an elected regional council which would

quite quickly be in a position to strike a balance between the geographical and social interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, without being influenced by any tiny clique in one part looking after its own selfish interests.
If the Minister has any doubt about how that could be achieved, let me give him a word of advice. I hope that he will not mind my presuming to do that. I would not be too hopeful about the possibility of unanimous agreement being reached in Northern Ireland. The Minister is long enough in the game of politics to know that it is not in the interest of political parties ever to agree unanimously on anything. On the rare occasions when they do, the rest of us had better look out.
Therefore, I suggest that the Government should gauge the climate of opinion in Northern Ireland and sound out the people at the receiving end—although they are not receiving very much at the moment from local government. The views of the people will be expressed at the coming local government elections. The Government might then put forward a proposal which would amount to presenting people in various political parties with a clear choice. It would be "Do you want better government in Northern Ireland, or will you go on refusing it?" If the Secretary of State makes that kind of offer, he will put them in a position where they simply cannot refuse or reject what he is offering.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: The House will appreciate that the questions that have been asked today cover a wide range of extremely complex subjects. It is not my intention to try to deal with them all, irrespective of the amount of time that is available to me. I wish to make further inquiries about some of the questions, and I shall write to hon. Members about certain matters. If I slightly sidestep some of the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) it is not because I refuse to take his advice. I listen to advice from all. However, he leads me on a path which I do not wish to tread tonight, or at any other time in the near future. We shall have to wait and see what happens in May before we consider whether to continue.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that, inevitably, he will


be writing to hon. Members to deal with many of their detailed points. May I say to him, without criticism, that on the previous debate it took two and a half months—I noticed a similar interval in the case of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave)—for comparatively simple and straightforward answers to be given? I am sure that this is not the Under-Secretary's fault, but I am equally sure that he will wish to give instructions to his officials to be sure that the interval on this occasion is much shorter.

Mr. Dunn: To hold a letter for that long is not only inefficient but discourteous. I have made that known to those who were responsible for the delay. I do not intend to stand at this Dispatch Box—I hope that those who are listening will convey this to their colleagues in the Civil Service—to be justly criticised for something which is no fault of mine. If an interim reply cannot be given within three weeks, and a final reply in as many weeks again, the matter must be extremely complex and that should be explained with courtesy and promptness. It will not be my fault if letters are delayed again. If they are, those responsible will hear from me much more loudly than they have in the past—and I am generally a tolerant and courteous man.
Many questions have related to the Quigley Report. One or two hon. Members made reference to it, following the lead given by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). The Quigley Report was published last summer and it has been circulated widely. Numerous papers and commentaries on the report have been received from various sources including three political parties—the Northern Ireland Labour Party, the Unionist Party of Northern Ireland and the Democratic Unionist Party. There have also been individual comments from members of a wide range of organisations representative of the life and activity within the Province. Officials have been giving this matter considerable attention and it is being considered by my right hon. Friend and other ministerial colleagues.
Some of the points in the report need to be looked at over a longer period and in greater detail than has so far been possible. My right hon. Friend is most anxious that the new economic council,

which he hopes will be set up shortly, will assist him in this examination. I am sure that the House will agree that it would be advantageous and wise to allow the new council to make its representations before decisions are made upon the strategy that could be recommended in the report. We must get this matter right. While the report goes far into some of the fundamental and lasting problems of the Province, we must not jump too quickly until we have taken account of all the advice that we shall receive.
The rise in house prices in the private sector reflects the reduction in the number of new houses being built. The scarcity has caused its own internal inflation. Once some incident occurs in an area, there is an urgent desire to move out, for reasons which we understand, and therefore other problems of scarcity are created. In the public sector the Department of the Environment has a cost yardstick related to that used in Great Britain. It fully monitors the price of houses and keeps them under constant evaluation. Cost-benefit analysis is a continuing process.
The hon. Member for Abingdon also raised the question of industrial and commercial investment, both public and private. He will be fully aware of the public investment which has been generated in the Province. I have no doubt that he was referring to any further investments which would be made in existing industries, Harland and Wolff in particular.
For private investment Northern Ireland enjoys a status equivalent to that of any special development area. In some respects it has been treated more generously than the areas which already possess special development status, particularly Merseyside. Northern Ireland has distinct advantages over Merseyside, and I speak with some little knowledge. To encourage the establishment of new industry—we recognise that my hon. Friends in the Department responsible for this have done everything possible to attract new industry—officials of the Department of Commerce have undertaken a massive exercise to encourage potential investors.
The disincentive to investment is more often than not the way in which news is presented about violence, destruction,


death and maiming in the Province. This has a consequential effect upon investment. We do all we can to overcome this, but it is not an easy task. One can understand the difficulties which my hon. Friends responsible for this have to face. I am sure that the House would wish to express their appreciation to my hon. Friends for their endeavours and the continuing determination they show in that regard.
I turn now to Harland and Wolff and the question of diversification and possible defence contracts. We recognise the need for diversification and my hon. Friend the Minister of State has been actively pursuing the potential for this. Harland and Wolff has facilities designed specifically to build ships. If it were possible to attract that type of trade, I am sure that everyone would agree that that would be the right and proper thing to do.
I can assure the House that nothing will be left undone that can possibly be done in the search for future orders, and that progress is being made. I do not want at this stage to go into details about present negotiations. I am sure that the House will understand my reluctance. I have been advised that there is little prospect in the near future of Harland & Wolff receiving any defence contracts. I would be less than truthful if I did not say that in an outright and open manner. I know that that will disappoint the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), because Harland and Wolff is situated in his constituency.
Energy costs present a problem that concerns us all. The Government are considering the subject and the difficulties arising from their consideration of the Shepherd Report. I am told that Departments are considering the report and are assembling it in a way that will allow it to be published.
It is not possible to give a definite date for publication, but it will be very soon. I recall that I said that in December. I believed then that it would be published soon, but a number of matters relating to the report have arisen since then, and those who drew up the report have been requested to re-examine and review some suggestions.
The review has brought some advantage for prospects within the Province,

although hon. Members should not think that it is certain that there will be financial support towards energy costs in the immediate future. However, we shall do what we can in this matter.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and other hon. Members raised problems concerned with agricultural drainage. I have done all I can to see that where drainage problems arise, meetings have been held to examine, investigate and discuss the matter. One of our major problems is the level of financial resources needed to tackle some of the major drainage problems.
I could read a well-prepared brief on each of the subjects drawn to my attention by the right hon. Member for Down, South, but I think that he would prefer me to say that every effort is being made to deal with the problems of bogland, the River Lagan, the Clanrye—Newry River, although there are major drainage problems in the latter schemes.
We have to proceed with caution, because if work in the urban and agricultural land approaches to Newry were done carelessly, the right hon. Member and his constituents would be up to their necks in water in the centre of Newry. This is a major problem that cannot be easily overcome.
As I have explained before, hydrological surveys and feasibility studies have been undertaken and the results have been translated and put on to a computer in order to create a basic model. This model is now under intensive study so that we can see whether some of the major work which would be required can be undertaken quickly and so that we shall know in advance, by testing the material that has been gathered in the survey, whether it has other consequences of great magnitude. We want to get the right answers from the hydrological surveys and we wish to get the widest possible interpretation of the evidence so that we may study the proposals made for drainage improvements and so that the problems can be understood by those who will be affected.
It was suggested that drainage plans should be announced in a flexible five-year rolling programme. While I have some sympathy with that proposal, it is not possible to undertake it without taking on other burdens that would be


associated with it. I am sure, for instance, that the right hon. Member for Down, South would defend the Department from any criticism if part of the provisional programme were not implemented, but others might not defend us, and it would be foolish for us to establish such a programme because some people might spend money in anticipation of benefiting and if the projects were deferred, that would rebound on the Department. It is in the interests of flexibility and of the Province as a whole that we should not establish a five or six-year rolling programme. It would be better for us to discover the results of our necessary intensive examination of the problem before undertaking any schemes.

Mr. McCusker: On that basis, how far ahead does the hon. Gentleman think that his Department should plan?

Mr. Dunn: Departments always make provisional plans, but it is not always wise to make them known to everyone, because if the provisional plans are not carried out, criticism falls on those who published the proposals, and, as I have said, I do not take kindly to providing material for hon. Members to criticise me on matters for which I am not responsible. It would not be to the advantage of the Government or the Province for us to make a statement about such plans too far ahead of their implementation.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman knows that in at least half the drainage problems that are raised with me and with which he assists I have to explain to constituents the ultimate limiting factors in these major schemes and the constitution of the basin. Surely it would be possible for that background and the authority for it not to rest solely, as at present, upon my transmission, ad hoc in each case, of a ministerial reply—with which I endeavour to associate myself rather than act just as a post office.
Surely it would be possible to provide a framework within which these problems could begin to be recognised and understood by the people who were directly involved without that incurring the dangers that the hon. Gentleman rightly indicates. I am really asking him to back me up by providing a general background and giving an authoritative statement of it.

Mr. Dunn: I should be pleased to give as much information as I could to the right hon. Gentleman, because I know that in him I should be well served. However, once these statements become well known, one arouses the potential criticism of everyone who owns land and there are immediate legal problems associated with them. It becomes a very complex matter and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think about the problems and burdens which would arise from his suggestions.
There would be nothing wrong if I did use the right hon. Member for Down, South as a post office, but I do not. I pass information to him and he rightly feels that it is his duty to make the information known to his constituents. Every hon. Member operates in a similar fashion. The right hon. Gentleman's feelings might not be shared by all of his colleagues and I must take that into account before agreeing to publish plans far in advance of their implementation.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there are difficulties. I shall do my best to respond at any time to any inquiry that he makes about drainage in his constituency.
Hon Members spoke about communication with the Northern Ireland Department and the problem of dealing in detail with some of the issues that their constituents bring to their attention. I was under the impression that hon. Members could directly correspond and ask for details about a particular issue as distinct from asking for policy statements or changes in policy. Asking for policy statements or changes in policy is not an appropriate matter to raise at that level.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South said that communication difficulties might be examined by my right hon. Friend and my colleagues to see if there are ways of improving communications. He wanted us to work out ways of short-circuiting the procedure. I can understand that there are delays, because we send letters to each other and hon. Members and Ministers often have to move to different places at short notice. That causes delays in responses to inquiries.
I shall bring the criticisms to the attention of my right hon. Friend and my


colleagues. There may be a way of meeting the request. However I make a strong reservation: in no circumstances should local or departmental offices, or even headquarters staff, be held responsible for arguing the detail of policy. That is a matter for Ministers. I hope that that is clear to hon. Members.

Mr. Molyneaux: That was one of the first issues that I put to the Secretary of State when he took over in Northern Ireland. Under previous managements, if we wrote to the local office the letter was forwarded to the Minister and in due course we received a reply from the Minister. That was a nonsense. It is not surprising that we have reverted to the old practice of communicating directly with the Minister. We found it impossible the other way.

Mr. Dunn: We shall look at this and I shall ask my right hon. Friend to take account of what has been said today. I believe that something might be arranged.
It is parliamentary practice that one hon. Member never intervenes in the constituency affairs of another. That also applies to making personal visits, being on the spot to raise various issues, and arranging meetings in other constituencies. It must be clearly understood that no hon. Member should trespass into the area of another without that hon. Member's permission. Otherwise the scheme will break down. I expect hon. Members to re that those who do not follow that custom and practice now will do so in future. If they do not, any experiment that might be tried will fail.
Hon. Members mentioned homes for married people. Yesterday a full and frank exchange on housing finance took place in Committee when my colleague who is responsible for housing answered questions. This is not an appropriate time for me to go over the matters that were raised yesterday and which were answered in detail by my colleague. He will take account of the comments that were made and will no doubt write to hon. Members.
The Department of the Environment is currently looking at ways of helping young people who wish to purchase a home. My hon. Friend has published papers on this issue and he has made suggestions to those who will be immediately involved—elected councillors,

community councillors and other interested bodies. Whatever the outcome of these discussions, I am sure that my hon. Friend will take account of all opinions and consider option mortgages, equity sharing and special grants that could be applied to house purchase. My hon. Friend has been dealing with all those matters in the last few weeks and the House will wish to give him the opportunity to have further discussions.
I was asked who will be the members of the Belfast housing steering group. A large group is not necessary and it may be best for my hon. Friend to chair that group and for him to appoint people who can give him advice about the special issues involved. The group could then invite others in an ad hoc capacity to share in the discussions and to recommend action. If I were on the same benches as some hon. Members I should press with the same vigour for the involvement of elected representatives wherever possible. We share the same objective.
Hon. Members will appreciate that there will come a time, when plans have reached a formative stage and there is something positive to offer, when it will be feasible to aim for a large organisation. With such a complex task as the Belfast housing redevelopment scheme it is to everyone's advantage if, in the first instance, my hon. Friend deals with this in the way outlined. My hon. Friend is aware that he ought never to ignore the importance of consulting local councillors. As the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will know, the Belfast City Council has been consulted and made aware of the proposals.
I come now to the subject of squatting and the Twinbrook Estate. I wish it was simply a question of squatting. But the para-military movement was in the area. Some people moved out because they had no option. Others move in for the same reason. We are not talking about squatting. We are talking about something entirely different. I shall leave the matter there for the moment. If hon. Gentlemen want legislation to take account of this situation, we must first deal with the para-military organisations. I know that I shall have the help of hon. Members in everything that is done to deal with this situation.
The subject of adult education counselling and the advisory service was also raised. My noble Friend has been in consultation with those concerned. Although the grant is due to end on 31st March, it has been proposed that it be continued for some little time, during which period further discussion can take place. While it may not be possible to carry on the work in the present context, it will no doubt be possible to gather the current expertise together and bring those who have served so well for so long within the ambit of the new arrangements. It is not always possible to have things continue as we should like. Circumstances change and financial resources are not readily available. We have to make priorities. I assure hon. Gentlemen that my noble Friend will be acquainted with their views. I am sure that they will be pleased with my noble Friend's response.
Questions were raised about the rent and rate arrears and repayments. There is no legal provision allowing us to withhold payment following any application that might be made for rate rebate. Hon. Members will not expect the Northern Ireland Department to act illegally. Any suggestion that we encourage further debt by granting rate rebate is therefore incorrect. Every effort is made to collect outstanding debt.
This subject has many complex facets. There is no perfect system. To avoid a harsh decision we have to know fully the circumstances of the individual debtor. Conversely, there must be some sympathy for those who may not deserve that sympathy. We are only human beings trying to administer the scheme. It is better not to make further difficulties for families who already have social problems. We must not create further difficulties, psychologically and socially. I think we have struck the right balance here.
Emphasis has been placed on the cost of housing rehabilitation. There have been statements on which, because of their nature, I would not wish to comment further other than to assure those who have raised points that inquiries will be made. I shall write to those concerned. The House will know that there has been a revision of the system of contracts, with some beneficial results. My hon. Friends

are keeping the matter under constant review. We hope soon to be in a position to review the contracting system. I have responsibilities in the Works Department. We are looking closely at the issues involved.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) raised the subject of the registered blind, who are charged 12p for their directory inquiries. I do not know what can be done about this, but I can assure him that we shall bring it to the notice of those in authority and see what we can do. There is a difficulty in that if something is done for one part of the United Kingdom, it will have to be done for the remainder. Not to do so would be unfair. There may be other categories of people who would claim the same privilege. I agree with the hon. Member that this is a matter deserving of further investigation. I hope that the telephone authorities in the United Kingdom will take note of what has been said.
I can assure those hon. Members who raised the subject of the review of a housing list that the list is being reviewed by the Housing Executive. Notwithstanding some of the criticims that have been made of the Executive—I believe unfairly—it is continually seeking to improve its efficiency. Without help and support from others its achievements will be seriously diminished. Huge sums of money are involved. These matters cannot be treated lightly. It is easy to say that the Executive will never succeed. If we do not make the effort, we shall never have the opportunity to succeed.
I appeal to hon. Members who may have criticised what has happened in the past to look at this with a fresh mind and to give support to the Executive in the tremendous task that lies before it in the next four or five years. Initially there are bound to be problems and it is right to bring those problems to the attention of those concerned. But it is then up to us to provide some form of support and assistance to overcome those problems. It is often helpful if understanding and sympathy are shown even though one may not agree completely, chapter and verse, with everything that has been done.

Mr. Bradford: While accepting part of what the Minister says, may I ask whether it is not significant that the


building record of the Housing Executive seriously decreased from the moment it took charge of public sector housing in the Province? Would the Minister care to comment on the relationship between the Housing Executive and those dealing with comprehensive areas, which is really the point that I raised?

Mr. Dunn: I shall bring all these things to the notice of those concerned and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman in great detail, as he would expect.
The Department of Agriculture has decided to provide for culverting the portion of the river to which the hon. Member for Antrim, South has drawn my attention. As usual, we are trying to serve in the best way humanly possible.
Among the other matters raised was one relating to special concessions for old-age pensioners for angling and fishing permits. I am not sure that these things can be so readily agreed or undertaken. As the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) knows, a system operates throughout the United Kingdom as a whole and unless concessions were given to old-age pensioners or retirement pensioners in the United Kingdom, there would be major difficulties about exercising any concessions in relation to angling and fishing permits in the Province.
We shall look at this matter without commitment. It may well be that there are some other ways in which this suggestion can be operated. But the Fisheries Conservancy Board also has a responsibility and has to pay from its own resources for the upkeep of angling.
If we did not have the resources, no doubt the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) would complain even further about the lack of angling opportunities. But we are torn between the devil and the deep blue sea. However, we shall not let the hon. Gentleman's request pass unnoticed. If it is possible to do anything in that regard, I shall consider it and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wm. Ross: I should point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) lives in the area of the Fisheries Conservancy Board while I live under the Foyle Board. They are two separate bodies. As a result, what affects my hon. Friend's part of the country does not necessarily affect mine.

Mr. Dunn: I was answering the point put to me by the hon. Member for Armagh when I mentioned the Fisheries Conservancy Board. If we "went too far", we would not be able to accept the case of the hon. Member for Londonderry, irrespective of whether the hon. Gentleman lives in Londonderry and fishes on the Foyle for trout or salmon.
The hon. Member for Londonderry referred to the foolish expansion of the potato crop and asked the Department of Agriculture to make a categoric statement about this. Statements have already been made about this matter. We cannot expect people to act in a way that will suit even the hon. Gentleman's beliefs. Warnings have been given. Farmers are not fools and they know the movements of crops. If I were to give an opinion about the wisdom of farmers, it would be that they know what is involved and they know how many pence make a pound and do not need to be told. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should expect us to keep on reminding them of their own follies. If they want to act foolishly, that is their decision and not ours.
With regard to the remoteness grant I can only assure hon. Gentlemen that at the moment this matter is under intensive discussion and it would not be proper for me at this stage to forecast what the outcome will be. The apprehensions that hon. Gentleman has brought to our notice are in our minds. We are discussing these issues with other colleagues involved and they have given their attention to some of the identical subjects which the hon. Gentleman has brought to my attention.
I hope that the House will agree that I have tried to answer a wide range of questions put to me by those hon. Members who continued to remain in the Chamber after they had made their contributions. If I have not covered all the topics, I repeat my undertaking that I shall write to the hon. Members concerned without any unnecessary delay. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree that this order deserves support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (RATES)

8.35 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I beg to move,
That the Rates Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.
The proposed order will amend the law in Northern Ireland relating to rates and the valuation of property for rating purposes to achieve a broad parity with England and Wales.
There are three main changes. First, the order extends domestic rate aid—which reduces the poundage of regional rate chargeable on dwellings—to apply to the private dwelling part of premises used partly for residential purposes and partly for other purposes. Secondly, it gives a right of appeal on the question whether rates on premises used for recreational purposes are subject to reduction. Thirdly, it allows rating relief for charity shops.
A number of amendments related to or consequential on these changes are provided for, as are others of a comparatively minor and unrelated nature. They are providing for the right to pay rates by instalments in respect of all properties used partly as private dwellings; extending the right to discount on rates or to rate rebate in certain cases; removing from the benefit of industrial derating all parts of industrial premises which are used for the purposes of a dwelling-house; and amending two date errors in the 1972 order, rectifying minor incorrect uses of language and simplifying the procedure for revising the valuation list.
Regarding the proposal to give rating relief to charity shops, this follows directly on the enabling legislation passed in this House on 6th August 1976—Rating (Charity Shops) Act 1976—which was not extended to Northern Ireland because of differences in the rating laws of the two territories.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The Under-Secretary has explained the order clearly. However, I should like to offer a few observations on rates.
The rise in rates announced for the financial year 1975–76 came as a shock. There has been no revaluation for 20 years, so that many of the individual increases were swingeing. To many people in a small way of business, they seemed about the last straw. Like their brethren on this side of the water—and I speak as Patron of the Epping Forest Chamber of Commerce—the Northern Ireland business community must cope with much tiresome legislation, vexatious form-filling and the duties of honorary, unpaid but conscripted tax collectors.
In English constituencies, however, we do not yet suffer the terrorism which has been directed against not merely their property but their very lives. The Secretary of State perhaps should not have been so testy when the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) voiced his constituents' anxiety at Question Time. In an earlier debate my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), in an admirable speech, praised the courage of the business community. The terrorist is unable to quench the Ulster spirit of business as usual.
For 1975–76, rates rose by an average of 32 per cent. I wonder what the increase will be for 1976–77. I wonder how much of the increase is attributable to inflation and how much to the leeway to be made up in the pursuit of parity with other comparable parts of the United Kingdom. I understand that the 32 per cent. average increase for 1975–76 was composed of a 25 per cent. estimated increase in comparable areas on this side of the Irish Channel and a 7 per cent. leeway payment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and I visited the chamber of commerce and received its deputation when the increases for 1975–76 were made public. Thanks to the kindness of the hon. Members for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) and Londonderry (Mr. Ross), I have met representatives of the commercial community in their constituencies. There was strong talk of the traders withholding payment. How many have done so, to what extent have they done so and in which parts of the Province has it been done?
Article 6 of the order provides for what might be called easy payments. It is a welcome provision. Also welcome


is the extended right to discount for prompt payment. Will the Minister explain why discount is allowable only on the domestic element of hereditaments used partly as dwellings? Should there not be a general incentive for early and prompt payment?
Article 4 deals with relief from rates in respect of recreational hereditaments and for appeals thereon. Does the article cover indoor recreational facilities? I believe it does not. Is the Gaelic Athletic Association a beneficiary of this relief? The GAA plays an important part in the social life of the Province. For myself, I admire Gaelic sports. Indeed, it is suggested that consideration be given to periodical Ulster games meetings for those who play and watch the various British and Irish sports. Jubilee Year might have been a good time to start.
Does the Minister think it right that sports council and Government assistance should be given to a recreational organisation that discriminates improperly? Many people would consider it improper, to put it mildly, for the GAA to exclude those who serve in the Royal Navy or the Army, although the discrimination, quaintly, does not appear to extend to the Royal Air Force or the Royal Marines. This is a matter for Professor Lawrence's committee to consider. I understand that the committee met for the first time on 22nd October. When are we likely to have its report?

8.48 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I briefly take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on the right of appeal and facilities for appeal in the case of halls used for recreational purposes. Although we are grateful for this improvement it is rather limited. We assume that valuation in the first instance must surely have been related in some way to the renting value of the building. For the life of me I cannot see how this comes about. I cannot understand how a valuation of £360 should be placed on a building that has an income of a mere £17 a year. This is why I say that the appeal is of limited benefit.
Even if the appeal were successful and secured a reduction of one fifth, one-quarter or one-third in the amount origi-

nally assessed, it would still be beyond the bounds of possibility that any board of trustees would be able to foot the bill and remain in business. When we consider the part that these buildings play and the contribution they make to the community, we must urge the Government to look again in the near future at the whole system of their valuation. There is an element of self-interest in this matter. If we try to impose this scale of charges, the trustees will close the doors whether the appeal is successful or not. There will then be a total loss to the rating authorities.
I want now to deal with rates as they affect traders. There is provision under various headings for payment to be made by instalments and so on. We must face the fact that traders have been confronted with an absolutely staggering increase as a result of 20 years' neglect in keeping valuations up to date. Traders accept that situation. They are not refusing to pay. The fact is that they do not have the money with which to pay. We are defeating the object of the operation if they are forced to pay this lump sum and are thereby put out of business. The doors will be closed and there will be unemployment and total loss again to the rating authorities.
In addition to the concessions on appeals, I suggest that the Minister should consider giving some guidance to rate collectors to display a little more flexibility in dealing with traders. They should engage in what traders and good dealing people call sensible bargaining and be reasonable about the payment of arrears. Rate collectors should work out arrangements with traders to enable arrears to be cleared as and when the traders can afford it. I am not referring to payments in advance by instalments. That is a different matter.
If we are to have any chance of making the order work for this year, which is an emergency situation, we must be prepared to be more flexible. In the longer term it is in the interests of the Government, the rating authorities and the traders to co-operae in order to get over the hump this year.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I should like to ask two or three questions about matters on which the Minister will


be well briefed, because they were raised in the form of comments on the proposals for this draft order at an earlier stage.
The first question relates to one of the subjects covered by the order—namely, the treatment of divided hereditaments which are partly domestic and partly non-domestic. Will the ratepayer—the occupier—have any option in the case of such premises whether or not he avails himself of the facilities which the order introduces? I understand that in many cases it will be advantageous for the ratepayer of a divided hereditament, who has hitherto been industrially rated, to opt in future to be part domestically and part industrially rated. Nevertheless, I think that there will be cases where it would be advantageous to the ratepayer overall to continue in such an instance to be industrially rated and not to avail himself of the provisions for apportionment. My first question, therefore, is: is the new arrangement for apportionment mandatory or can the ratepayer opt?
My second question relates to the provision for appeal in cases where recreational rating was previously finally decided by the Department but will now be appealable to the Lands Tribunal. I want to know whether in such cases, in deciding such appeals, the Lands Tribunal will have to be guided by previous decisions of the Department or whether it can now build up its own code. In other words, can it look at a new case which comes before it without regard to the way in which the Department has previously settled similar cases, or will it be bound by departmental precedent when sitting upon appeals now allowable by virtue of this order?
My third point has already been touched upon by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison)—that is to say, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House something of the progress on the study of the question whether the charitable category for rating purposes should be extended to include certain halls. The inquiry has already been in existence for about four or five months, I think, and this is a matter on which it should now be possible to arrive at a conclusion fairly quickly. I hope that the Minister, therefore, will be able to tell the House that we can shortly look forward to having a report from this committee and that consequently many

more recreational halls will be brought within the derated category.
Rating above all subjects is extremely difficult to get through to the general public. I know of no subject on which those who set out to expound the law and how it works encounter more incomprehension—so much incomprehension that one is inclined to think that there is a voluntary element hidden away in it somewhere.
This order brings benefits to certain ratepayers—for example, to a number of occupiers of hereditaments hitherto industrially rated. It brings potential opportunities to those operating charity shops and those who wish to challenge the refusal of the Department to rate recreational premises preferentially. How do the Government suppose that these changes in the law will become known to those who might benefit from them?
I return here to a very sore subject. Normally, when there is legislation in Great Britain to make changes of this sort, all kinds of bodies have been involved in it beforehand and the debate, participated in by more hon. Members, itself brings to the attention of those concerned the fact that there is a change in the law which may be to their advantage.
I want to ask the Government to go as far as they can in remedying this. We are coming close to the period when rate demands are sent out. I imagine they will be going out in the next two or three weeks over most of Northern Ireland. Would it be possible, for example, as the order will go through in a few minutes, for a note of these changes to be included either with the rate demand to all ratepayers, or—more likely—with the rate demand going to the relevant sorts of ratepayer?
It is impossible to underestimate the difficulty which the public in Northern Ireland have in finding out how the law which affects them is being changed. It is our business in this House to devise ways, so far as possible, of counteracting that difficulty. The debate we are having at this moment and the exposition of the order by the Minister is unlikely to be headline news tomorrow afternoon in the Belfast Telegraph. I am sure that it ought to be, but we know that it will not. In fact, it is extremely unlikely that any of the Northern Ireland newspapers will carry a report of the change


in the law which is being made by the House tonight.
Hon. Members can do something to help, by planting reports of what transpires with the local newspapers circulating in their constituencies, but when all this has been done there is still a communications gap, which we ought constantly to be trying to narrow.
I therefore ask the Minister—he will not be able to reply to this off the cuff, but there are those who are listening to us—to consider seriously whether the rating authorities can be encouraged to bring to the attention of those concerned, in connection with the new rating year—though actually some of these provisions are retrospective to the present rating year—the undoubted improvements in the law of valuation for rating which this order makes, in case they may benefit by them.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: On the question of industrial use and the apportionment—I must tell the House that there will be no different treatment in Northern Ireland from that accorded the rest of the United Kingdom in relation to discount payments. I am not aware that discount payments are available to those who pay industrial rating in Great Britain. It would be unwise to introduce concessions of that kind in Northern Ireland when we are already dealing in advance of the United Kingdom in general with some other concessions, namely, the separation between industrial use and the portion occupied as a dwelling house.
As for appeals, the Lands Tribunal makes its own decisions having regard to case law and the evidence submitted to it by both sides. As far as I am aware, the appeals system applicable in the United Kingdom generally would in general be applicable to Northern Ireland. Although it is suggested that there should be a change, I am not aware of which change has been sought by those making the representations. The appeal procedure is there. The appeal can be made direct in the first place to the valuation officer and after that consideration can be given to approaching the Lands Tribunal on the very complex problems that will arise.
As far as I am aware, for recreational and other community purposes there is a 35 per cent. deduction from the rates payable. The Lawrence Committee is looking more intently at a wider range of derating than has been suggested. Although the committee has not met as often as hon. Members might wish, nevertheless evidence is being collated and representations are being made to the committee. I hope that at an early date we shall receive the committee's report and recommendations.
Particular reference was made to the GAA. It is receiving the benefit to which it is entitled in the same way as any other applicant. While I cannot say that there is a 35 per cent. across-the board de-rating—there may be some local branches involved that have not made the necessary application—I stress that they are entitled to benefit and if they apply they will be afforded it.
I cannot say offhand to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) how many traders withheld payments and in which specific areas of the Province this occurred. I shall write to him on that matter. From my general recollection I think that there was some reluctance—perhaps even resistance—but that has considerably diminished and there has been a greater response to the payment of rates than I expected initially. My officers in the rating department try to help in every possible way.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) suggested that we should look at the means used to collect instalments of arrears. As he gave me notice that he was going to ask this question, I have raised it with my officers today. I assure him that it is the policy of the Department never to refuse any reasonable offer of rate payment, whether of arrears or forward instalments. There is not statutory requirement to allow the payment of rates by instalments, but we are introducing such a system under this order.
Following representations made to the Secretary of State, the Department has by Press advertisements invited commercial ratepayers who are having difficulty in meeting their rate demands to contact local rate officers in order to


make arrangements to pay by the instalment method. In this way we are maintaining a flexibility of approach to accommodate individual cases.
I hope that the hon. Member will be satisfied that, while we are trying to approach these issues with some uniformity, we feel that there must be flexibility. It has been my personal experience that often when people are very vociferous about their rate payments inquiries reveal that they are not just one payment in arrears, and perhaps not even one year in arrears. Very often the arrears go much further and wider.

Mr. Molyneaux: I think that the Minister will agree that the rent collector on the spot will be in a position to judge and identify those cases of genuine hardship, and those cases where there is a genuine intention on the part of the ratepayer to meet the demands.

Mr. Dunn: I note what the hon. Member has said. I shall follow that through and, if necessary, write to him again.
I think that I have answered all the questions put to me other than the very important one about explanatory notices which might be sent out with the rate demand that is circulated in the near future. There may be some complex problems involved in this which may put a burden on local councils. I shall look at this and write to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). If this proposals is not possible in the present rate demand distribution, it may be possible at a future date.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Rates Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (TRANSPORT)

9.5 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): I beg to move,
That the Transport (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.
The order is a miscellaneous transport one, the main purpose of which is to enable the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company, with the consent of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, to transfer to a subsidiary company the functions, assets and staff previously transferred to the holding company from Belfast Corporation at the time of local government reorganisation.
The order would also enable the Department of the Environment, with the approval of the Department of Finance, to make grants to the holding company and its subsidiary companies, to rebate fuel tax duty incurred by bus companies, to provide for grants by the Department of the Environment for concessionary fares on passenger transport undertakings, and to permit alteration in the membership of the Transport Users' Committee. It would increase certain fines for offences on railways and enable the making of regulations about offences for fare evasion on buses. It would confer functions on the Department in relation to the railway company under certain EEC regulations. It would repeal spent provisions in railway legislation.
The proposal was published on 14th September 1976 and was given a wide distribution to statutory and non-statutory bodies, the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Press and through Her Majesty's Stationery Office, in addition to the agreed distribution through parliamentary channels. The order as now presented includes points made by these bodies during the consultative period.
The draft order was debated in the Northern Ireland Committee of the House on 16th December 1976 and, while many points of interest about its implementation were raised, the debate did not reveal the need for any modification to the content of the order itself. The draft


Order was debated in another place on 3rd March 1977 and was duly approved.
Article 1 of the order deals with its title, commencement and interpretation and provides that Articles 1 and 2 shall come into immediate effect and the other articles on "appointed days "
Article 2 would enable the holding company, with the consent of the Department of the Environment, to transfer to a subsidiary company all or any of the functions previously transferred to the holding company from the Belfast Corporation Transport Department. In effect, this means that Citybus, which at the moment is no more than a trading agency of the holding company, could be translated into a self-contained and self-accounting subsidiary.
Additionally, any staff of the holding company who are wholly or mainly employed in the discharge of these functions, and any plant or equipment necessary to carry out the functions, could also be transferred to the subsidiary company. Any immovable property vested in the holding company could be let to the subsidiary company at a rent to be agreed between the two parties.
Provision is made to ensure that any legal obligations, rights or liabilities relating to any functions transferred to the subsidiary company would be enforceable by or against the subsidiary company. Any staff transferred to the employment of the subsidiary company would enjoy conditions of employment not less favourable than those enjoyed before the transfer.
It is envisaged, as agreed by both unions and employers, that a merger of the Belfast transport undertaking with Ulsterbus is the longer-term objective. For the present, however, the disparities in terms and conditions of employment render this unattainable, and the present proposal to set up Citybus as a separate subsidiary is seen as an interim solution. A merger remains the ultimate objective, and discussions between unions and management will continue towards that end.
A large measure of integration is, however, achieved by having a common administrative headquarters for Citybus and Ulsterbus, with an integrated staff.
The two boards of directors consist of the same personnel, with a single managing director. While Citybus would be the operational company in respect of Belfast bus services, it would not take on the pension and compensation liabilities arising from the old Belfast transport undertaking, which would remain with the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company as at present.
Article 3 would enable the Department of the Environment, with the approval of the Department of Finance, to make grants to the holding company towards operating losses incurred by the subsidiary transport companies, towards the cost, including loan charges, of acquiring property in connection with its statutory activities, and in respect of pensions and compensation to former employees of the Belfast Corporation.
Article 4 seeks to enable the Department of the Environment to increase—with retrospective effect to 12th February 1974—the rate of grant payable to the operator of a bus service to defray the Customs or Excise duties charged on bus fuel. This has been paid to the bus companies on an extra-statutory basis, and we are merely bringing Northern Ireland into line with present Great Britain law.
Article 5 would make provision in regard to concessionary fare schemes provided by passenger transport undertakings. These schemes would be agreed with the Department of the Environment, which, with the approval of the Department of Finance, would be enabled to make grants towards the cost of such schemes. The present concessionary fare provisions are estimated to cost about £1½ million a year, and, while we are very conscious of their serious limitations, particularly in respect of the elderly, additional finance is not at present available to enable us to improve the scheme.
Article 6 would provide for the Department of the Environment, with the approval of the Department of Finance, to make grants to a subsidiary company of the holding company providing road passenger transport services, for capital expenditure on new buses and approved bus stations, depots and so on.
Article 7 seeks to extend the membership of the Transport User's Committee The total membership would be at the


discretion of the Head of the Department of the Environment.
Article 8 seeks to increase die borrowing power of the holding company from £4 million to £10 million, and Section 51 of the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 would be amended accordingly. This increase in borrowing limits does not reflect any worsening in real terms of the public transport industry in Northern Ireland but rather the general effects of inflation over a 10-year period combined with the borrowing needs of two additional subsidiary companies—Northern Ireland Airports and Citybus.
Article 9 is designed to establish that the Department of the Environment should be the competent authority for Northern Ireland in relation to the Northern Ireland Railways Company Limited, or any company by which it is replaced, for the purposes of EEC Regulations Nos. 1191/69 and 1192/69. This provides that the Department may give directions to the company on the operation of its railway system and also that the Department is obliged to make any payments to the company that are required, by those regulations, to be made by the competent authority. Similar legislation—the Railways Act 1974—was passed in respect of British Rail.
Article 10 enables the Department to make regulations concerning the payment of fares on buses, and provides for penalties for fare evasion. This is a new article inasmuch as it did not appear in the proposal as originally published, but hon. Members who were present at the debate in the Northern Ireland Committee may recall that I mentioned the Government's intention to include such a provision.
Article 11 seeks to increase the maximum penalty for improper use of the communication cord on trains from £5 to £25 and to amend Section 22 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1868 accordingly. The maximum penalty in connection with the avoiding of payment of fares on railways would also be increased, and Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 would be amended accordingly.
Article 12 is intended to repeal the already spent provisions of the Regulation of Railways Act 1868 and the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns)

Act 1911 in so far as they apply to Northern Ireland.
As hon. Members will see, the order is not of a far-reaching nature, each of its provisions being designed to achieve a limited but very desirable objective.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I think it is appropriate, on what the Minister has described as a miscellaneous transport order, to praise the steadiness of the remarkable men and women who keep the wheels of the transport services turning in very difficult and dangerous circumstances. I do not think that there are many Northern Ireland Members in the Chamber to whom the sight of a burning bus is something out of the ordinary.
I am told that 470 buses have been destroyed since 1970, and the managing director of Ulsterbus and Citybus was quoted in the Irish Times on 19th January as having said:
It is like asking in wartime how many planes have been lost.
He could not be more precise about the figures. The managing director, he harped back to the war, in which he served not on ours but on the German side. He served with the Afrika Corps. But he is a very gallant gentleman. Once in County Fermanagh he removed a hoax bomb from a hijacked bus. Like a good manager he faces the same risks as his drivers.
What is more, Ulsterbus makes money. I do not think that there are many public transport undertakings left in Europe that do. Unfortunately, the surplus achieved by Ulsterbus, which it is hoped, may amount to more than £2 million in the present year—the current report mentions a profit before taxation of some £1·4 million—is swallowed by the trading losses of Citybus services and the railway company. The Northern Ireland Transport holding Company has a total debt of £3·4 million. As the Secretary of State told us, the borrowing powers of the company are to be increased under Article 8 from £4 million to £10 million.
I do not know whether the proposed merger of Ulsterbus and Citybus will relieve the financial plight of the combined undertaking. I am always a little sceptical about the financial advantages of so-called integration. I am not quite


clear what particular advantages are looked for, although on paper there will, of course, be economies. But if there are considerable advantages to be gained from the merger, I am not sure why it is not being pushed forward more rapidly.
If I may turn to the railway company I remind the Minister of the suggestion that trains should be equipped with more efficient means of giving an alarm to the security forces in the event of attack or hijacking. Not long ago I travelled from Portadown to Dublin. I had been looking forward to the trip. I had heard much of the famous "Enterprise Express", but I was disappointed. It was dirty and untidy, and that is not good for morale.
Why are the city buses losing so heavily while Ulsterbus is profitable? I refer to the report and accounts of the holding company for the year ended 28th March 1976. On page 5 it says
Apart from the impact of inflation and the undoubted effects of the economic recession, the organisation is faced with two major problems which are seriously hampering its financial performance. First of all fare evasion and overriding still persists as a major revenue loss and it is felt that a fundamental change in the fare structure is the only answer to this question. Recommendations to this effect have been submitted to Government … Secondly, the Black Taxi Services continue to operate on the high density routes and the consequent loss in revenue is the major stumbling block to the City Bus Services effectively pursuing its target of financial self-sufficiency.
We welcome Article 10 which is aimed at reducing the evasion of fares. But why is it that the black taxi services still operate illegally? I say "illegally" because it was made clear by the Minister of State in another place that their activities are illegal and they are carried out with impunity.
On 21st June last year I asked the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the so-called people's taxis scheme of the Falls and Shankill Road. I asked how many had been prosecuted for operating without a licence, for overcrowding, or for breach of the insurance laws. I asked how much revenue these operations were estimated to take away from Citybus Limited, how many such taxis were estimated to operate, and whether the Secretary of State had any evidence of para-military involvement.
The right hon. Gentleman replied that since 1972 there had been 21 prosecutions for operating without a licence and 18 for operating in breach of the insurance laws. There had been no prosecutions, however, for over-crowding, but I can assure hon. Members that overcrowded "black" taxis are a common sight on the streets of Belfast today.
The Secretary of State was unable to give an accurate estimate of the loss of revenue to Citybus, but he said that it might be £1 million. He said that of the 758 licensed taxis in Belfast, about 400 were estimated to be operating specifically in the Falls and Shankhill areas, There were also believed to be some unlicensed taxis operating in these areas in this way. However, he said that there was no specific evidence of paramilitary involvement. That does not mean that there was no para-military involvement.
I do not believe everything I read in newspapers, even in the News Letter. But if half of what is recorded by Mr. Arthur Boyd in his article of 8th February is true, it is profoundly disturbing. It fully justifies the importance attached by the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company to the "black" taxi service as a main reason for the loss of revenue, which puts the company so much into the red. According to this article, there are about 400 "black" taxis in Belfast.
The "black" taxi business has become a big commercial undertaking and a "legitimate front"—that is not an expression I would use—for the para-military groups on both sides. The article continues:
The plain fact is that the law is being flouted. Three policemen told me that they had been told to leave the black taxis alone because they were a political 'hot potato'. The evidence is clear to anyone that the taxis do almost as they like.
If we pull in a few for testing, there is trouble. You can get the others blocking off the roads and perhaps a not starting in no time. It's just not worth it.
I do not know what degree of credence to attach to this article, but I think that the position is sufficiently disturbing to merit some comment from the Minister when he replies.

9.21 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: The debate in Committee on this


subject began with a reference to the courage and determination of those who are responsible for transportation in the Province. It was repeated tonight. On behalf of my hon. Friends in the Ulster Unionist coalition I should like to associate myself with that tribute. I do not wish to detain the House for long, because we have expressed our views on this fully on a previous occasion, but I should like to reiterate some of the questions that were posed then and to which direct answers were not given, for understandable reasons.
We understand that the main purpose of this order is to enable the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company to transfer assets and functions to Citybus so that in time it can become a limited company. I turn to Article 6, which deals with the important question of future expenditure on vehicles and property controlled by the holding company. It has been stated that 100 new buses are needed each year to maintain the service. I wonder whether that number is accurate and whether it is forthcoming. Are Citybus and Ulsterbus satisfied with the replacement of stocks?
What is the position concerning old-age pensioners' concessionary fares? The Minister will recall that previously we raised three issues—that there was no free travel in Northern Ireland, that there was twice as much money being spent on the mainland as in Northern Ireland, and that the age qualification in Northern Ireland was 70 compared with 65 elsewhere.
I added a further matter of concern on which no reply was given. In Great Britain about £18 per head is spent on transport. In Northern Ireland the figure is £6 per head. In our previous debate the Minister revealed a health scepticism about this figure. I prefer his scepiticism to the obscurantist views of some of his colleagues, but can he now confirm that the figures of £18 and £6 per head are correct? If so, what is inhibiting him from allocating another £1½ million to bring the per capita expenditure in Northern Ireland up to £7—still a long way off the £18 per head in Great Britain—by a shift in resources which will afford some kind of concessionary fare to all pensioners in the Province and not just the small group in Belfast and those who use the railways? We have not yet

had an answer to that question and I should be grateful if the Minister would provide it.
We also asked previously whether the Minister was happy with the sort of people being appointed to various committees and advisory boards. We were not happy with them because they were only rarely au fait with their remit or able to make a constructive contribution.
Is the Minister satisfied that the members of the Transport Users Consultative Committee will be the sort of people who will ask constructive questions and, through an adequate secretariat, convey their findings and recommendations and meet frequently enough to be able to monitor public reaction to the transport system in the Province?
Has there been any progress on the universal fare structure mooted by City-bus some time ago? This would be helpful in two ways. It would enable many more people in the Province to use public transport, because at the moment some people have to pay exorbitant fares. Secondly, it would be helpful to schoolchildren, who often have to pay two tokens to travel to school in Belfast. For a family with three or four children the cost of fares can become quite high. Is the Minister satisfied with the progress towards a universal fare structure, particularly for schoolchildren?

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Carter: The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) prefaced his remarks in this debate—as he did in Committee—with praise for the people working in the Northern Ireland transport undertakings. I echo what he said. The people employed in transport in Northern Ireland, unlike their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom, are engaged in an occupation that is not only hazardous, but in which their lives are at considerable risk. Everyone in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom is in their debt.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest went on to talk about the differences in economic viability between Ulsterbus and Citybus. The two operations are not the same. They work in different areas Nevertheless, we should seek to minimise the imbalance between the two undertakings.
The hon. Member said that we were merging the two companies. We are not doing that. In the order we are separating them rather more for reasons other than economy. We are currently reviewing the fare structure and we hope that when a new structure is introduced we shall be able to avoid much of the fare evasion that exists and recoup more from the travelling public.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I thought that I said that it was proposed to merge the two undertakings but that it was some way off. I understand that it is the Government's policy to merge them. What are the special advantages of that?

Mr. Carter: I must have misheard the hon. Member. The merger is a longterm objective and at present there seems to be no likelihood of that being achieved.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest concluded his remarks with general observations about the "black" taxis about which we are acutely concerned. They have an impact on the bus services and the situation is currently under review. I am looking closely at the "black" taxi service to see whether we can bring it to a legitimate state. There are certain problems with the police, because it is not possible for policemen to go about their normal duties in the way that they can in the rest of the United Kingdom. There are not the people on the ground to back up the intentions of the Government in that respect.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) said that I had not answered the points that he raised in Committee. If he checks, he will see that I answered all his questions.
I was also asked about buses that are lost through terrorism. That is a matter for concern particularly to the bus companies and the Government because it is an economic loss. Remarkable as it appears, terrorism does not seem to affect the viability of Ulsterbus or Citybus even though they have lost 40 buses since 1st January. They move with incredible speed to get buses back on the road. I visited a depot in Belfast and I have seen what they can do with completely burnt out wrecks. A collection of bits and

pieces of metal and twisted wreckage is quickly turned into a usable bus.
We are not in a position to move at all on concessionary fares. The hon. Member for Epping Forest made unfair comparisons between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The transport undertakings throughout the United Kingdom have different systems. If one compares Northern Ireland with certain other authorities, people in Northern Ireland have the advantage. But, if one compares the majority of the undertakings, the people of Northern Ireland are at a disadvantage.
The hon. Member also raised the question of the cost of the economic support for Northern Ireland transport compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. I should like to know the source of his figures, because it is extremely difficult to compare Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bradford: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is impossible for him to obtain the figures for transportation costs in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain as a whole? My source of information is quite close to his own Department. This was the fundamental question that he did not answer in Committee—why is it impossible to bring up to £7 per capita the amount spent on transportation in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Carter: I did not say that it was impossible to answer the question. I do not think that we have got around to answering the point that was raised in Committee. We shall do so. As with most Committee stages, many questions were asked and it takes time to answer them. I would be grateful if the hon. Member would give me the source of his information.
The purpose of the order is to extend the membership of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. After the local elections in May I hope to be in a position to do what the hon. Member asks and to increase the range of membership of the committee.
The hon. Member's final point was one with which I dealt in conjunction with a question asked by the hon. Member for Epping Forest about the fare structure. The structure is under review.
I am in general in support of the objectives of Ulster bus and Citybus in this respect. I hope that when implemented, the new structure will make an impact on the overall economic viability of the transport undertaking.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Transport (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (GAS)

9.37 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I beg to move,
That the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.
The main purpose of this order is to introduce essential new legislation in connection with metrication in the gas industry, the transfer of functions of the gas meter testing station and quality control of gas. At the same time, the opportunity is being taken to update and amend existing gas legislation to bring it into line with legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to safety and consumer protection. The bulk of the order consists of the consolidation of the existing code of gas legislation in Northern Ireland. The present code is complex, consisting as it does of 15 pieces of legislation dating from 1847. Its consolidation into one instrument will have the twofold effect of removing several archaic Acts from the statute book and providing the gas industry and its consumers with a more comprehensible gas code.
There is nothing in the order which anticipates the findings of the British Gas Corporation study team, which has not yet submitted its final report. We shall have plenty of time to discuss that in due course. The order was circulated in draft to interested parties prior to being laid. All comments were of a minor nature and these have been taken into account when preparing the order, which I now ask the House to consider.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: It is no discourtesy to the Minister to say that this order and the speech he has made underline the very unsatisfactory method that we now have of dealing with legislation affecting Northern Ireland. The order deals not only with metrication—an important subject—but with the crucial matters of the supply of gas, the compulsory laying of gas pipes, the compulsory acquisition of land, and penalties for breach of the order.
The order repeals nine whole Acts of Parliament as well as parts of three others. It contains 30 articles and three


schedules. It is the kind of measure which, although in part consolidating, could quite properly have occupied the Committee upstairs for six or eight sittings. It contains proposals which are far reaching and which ought to be the subject of proper debate on the Floor of the House, and, indeed, upstairs.
There was one other matter to which the Minister did not refer. It is quite clear from the Order Paper that this order has not yet been considered properly by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It was considered briefly on Tuesday, but it would not be proper to refer to what took place in that Committee. However, it is relevant and perfectly legitimate for us to speculate why there has not been the opportunity for the Joint Committee to consider the order before the Minister brings it to the Floor of the House.
In another place, there is a Standing Order which provides that no draft order shall be considered by another place until the Joint Committee has made its report. At the beginning of this Session, in the First Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the criteria which the Committee should apply when deciding whether it ought to draw the special attention of the House to a draft order provided, inter alia, that the special attention of the House should be drawn where an order imposed a charge on the public revenues. It also provided that when, in the Committee's view, the form of an order required further elucidation, a special report should be made to the House.
There is no doubt that the order imposes a charge on the public revenues. One has only to look at Articles 8 or 16 of the order to know this. I regret that it was not possible for the Government to complete the statutory procedure laid down by the Joint Committee before the order was presented to the House.
I have two specific points to put to the Minister. The first relates to Article 5. One wonders what on earth is meant by paragraph 4 of that article, which says that
Undertakers in fixing tariffs shall not show undue preference to any person or class of persons and shall not exercise any undue discrimination against any person or class of persons.

That is certainly language which, if we were in Committee and if we were in a position to amend the order, would be the subject of a lengthy and proper debate, because I think that that kind of language is a recipe for future dispute.
The second point is much more important and relates to Article 13. This is an important article because it gives substantial powers to a gas undertaker to lay pipes—this is the matter which is partly in dispute—
below ground across any land
owned by a citizen in Northern Ireland Paragraph (1) of Article 13 refers to the laying of a gas pipe "below ground", yet in the subsequent paragraphs those important words are omitted.
The true meaning of Article 13 is fat from clear. Do the gas undertakers have power to lay pipes above ground as well as below ground? Do not the provisions —which are gravely prejudicial to the citizen across or under whose land the pipes are to be laid—constitute an absence of any kind of appeal procedure, which is gravely disquieting?
Under the provisions of paragraph (4) of Article 13, it is only the consent of the Department which is required if the owner of the land disagrees with a proposal that pipes should be laid under his ground or over it. One can think of a hundred reasons why it would be unreasonable for an undertaker to wish to go to the disruption of agricultural land or even of commercially-owned land for the purpose of laying pipes over or under it. It might be very much easier and less costly for the undertaking to take its pipes by a different route. Yet even though the owner, occupier or tenant of agricultural land—say, a smallholding—believed that it would be deeply prejudicial to the land and he objected, all that would be required under the provisions of Article 13 is for the Department to say that it was necessary for these pipes to be laid. There is no provision for any kind of statutory appeal.
I said that one of the criteria laid down to give the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments power to make a special report to the House on a draft order concerned matters of redrafting. The drafting of Article 13(8) is sloppy. The words "the Department" at the


foot of page 9 would be very much better replaced by the single word "it".
The Opposition wish to register their anxiety about the way in which this legislation has been presented. We express our dissatisfaction with this system of legislating for 1½ million of the Queen's subjects in Northern Ireland. We think that it would have been better if the Minister had explained why it was that the Joint Committee had not had an opportunity to consider the order before it was presented on the Floor of the House.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. McCusker: I am sure that the House joins me in congratulating the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) on his first Front Bench appearance. If he shows the same diligence with other legislation as with this, we shall benefit substantially from it.
As the Minister knows, the gas manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland has given a general welcome to this order. Anything that will consolidate the legislation dealing with quality control, proper and accurate metering, safety, and the introduction of metrication is to be welcomed. The order repeals nine Acts of Parliament ranging over almost a century and a half, and it provides a fitting code for the gas industry.
However, one is prompted to ask whether there will be a gas industry governed by this code. The question is not whether there will be disputes about the placing of pipes above ground or under the ground but whether there will be any more gas pipes laid in Northern Ireland I hope that there will be.
In considering this modernisation can the Minister say why there is a section in the code dealing with the ascertainment and regulation of gas consumed by public lamps. Paragraph 11 of the code deals with this matter. Is it that the report which the Minister mentioned will have such an effect on the gas industry in Northern Ireland that once again it will be possible to light our streets with gas lamps, or is there some other reason for wishing to improve this paragraph in the code, which we thought was an updating and modernising exercise?
I am glad that the Minister has assured us that we shall have an opportunity to

discuss the report that is being produced on the Northern Ireland gas industry. It is probably ironic that we are discussing the order on the day when British gas consumers have been told that their tariff will be increased by 10 per cent. There is some doubt about whether that will happen, but gas consumers in Great Britain are getting hot under the collar about having their tariff increased from 15p per therm to 16½p per therm. At the same time gas consumers in Northern Ireland are facing a 25 per cent. increase on a tariff of 45p per therm.
It will be understood what I mean when I say that it is to be wondered whether there will continue to be a gas industry to operate. We all hope that there will be, and I notice that perhaps the British Gas Corporation has taken some note of our deliberations in Committee, because in its latest advertisements it refers not to United Kingdom gas but to great gas for Great Britain. I hope that when we get the report to which the Minister has referred the wording will change to great gas for the United Kingdom. That is what we require.
I shall not enlarge upon these matters now as there will be another opportunity to do so. On behalf of the gas manufacturers in Northern Ireland—as I have disclosed on several occasions, I am Chairman of the Gas Employers Board —I give a general welcome to the order.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. John Dunlop: My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) referred to efficient metering. Has the Minister of State any information about the wholesale burglary of the Strabane gas undertaking by the fiddling of meters, which resulted in a loss of about £100,000? If he has any information about that, I should like to hear it on behalf of my constituents and the Strabane undertaking.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Concannon: I give a general welcome to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who has joined us on the Opposition Front Bench in this debate. I am delighted to see him on the Opposition Front Bench. I am delighted that there is a fresh man taking part in Northern Ireland affairs. We look forward to seeing more of the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman might not know this, but Article 13 has an involvement with the Statutory Instrument. I do not want to anticipate a formal reply in Committee, but the mechanism of the order means that it cannot go through another place before the three small points that have been raised this evening have been satisfied. The order is protected in that way. Article 13 is covered in that way.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) asked me about Strabane. Earlier this evening an hon. Gentleman remarked that he did not believe everything he read in the newspapers. The hon. Gentleman who made that remark said that that applied especially to the Belfast Telegraph. I enter a word of caution about Strabane. We are looking into the matter but we feel that it should not be given general publicity. Many people might be interested to know what the people in Strabane might have been doing and how they might have been doing it. We are carrying out an investigation and we wish, if we can, to tackle the matter at source.
The order seeks to establish parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. Much of its wording is from United Kingdom legislation. Much of the remaining wording deals with the consolidation of some very old Acts. It is a great thing to pull them together. I accept what has been said about legislation for Northern Ireland, but the system now being used has been agreed by the House. The matter was reconsidered last year and some extensions were introduced. The system might not be satisfactory to those who are used to the ways of the House, but it is a great improvement on what used to take place
I assure the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) that once the gas committee report is in my hands I shall have to move with some speed. The report will have to go out for discussions. The hon. Gentleman, with his other hat on in Northern Ireland, will be involved in the discussions. I have no doubt that we shall again talk about gas in a more general way in the near future. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (POST OFFICE ORDERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising the important matter of employment in the telecommunications industry and the effects that a recent decision has had and will have on employment in that industry, in particular on Merseyside.
The decision by Plessey to declare redundancies in the telecommunications industry caused another shock-wave on Merseyside and in the North-West. The Minister will be fully aware of the desperate unemployment situation on Merseyside and, indeed, in other regions.
On Merseyside there is the question not only of problems in the telecommunications industry but of major problems in the construction, shipbuilding and ship repairing industries. The frightening aspect about the figures is that there is no indication of the bottoming-out of unemployment on Merseyside. If anything, the situation appears not to have improved but to have worsened. That has been borne out by the decision, to which I referred in my opening remarks, to declare redundancies and closures in the Plessey section of the telecommunications industry.
We are debating an industry which is not in decline but which is and will be an essential part of any modern industrial economy. In my view, the shattering news of last week is only the tip of the iceberg for the telecommunications industry. The industry's problems are not new. Indeed, in my opinion the problems are not confined to that industry. Its history is a classic example of the difficult, if not impossible, task of dealing with technological change in our society.
Arguments have raged as to where the fault lies. On Monday, during the debate on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary


of State for Employment dealt in great detail with the problems of the industry. Indeed, he referred to the technical problems involved in the transition from electro-mechanical to electronic equipment in the telecommunications industry. He clearly indicated that he was fully aware of the history of the industry and of the problems that have followed it over the years.
On the one hand, we find the industry blaming the Post Office in the sense that it argues that the vacillation and uncertainty of its ordering programme has been the cause of the problems that have faced the industry over the years. On the other hand, the Post Office argues that the industry is not producing the systems that it requires. There is obviously justification in the industry arguing that, if Plessey is producing gear and systems which are not required by the Post Office, there is a problem.
The history of this problem goes back to the setting up of the programme in the early 1970s with the objective of achieving a proper relationship between the industry and its main customer, the Post Office.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cryer.]

Mr. Loyden: This shows the problem in the industry. In spite of the attempts which have been made, there is no apparent solution.
The programme was affected by the Barber cuts of the 1970s. When the Labour Government came to power, the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) led to the cuts being partly reinstated. Nevertheless, the long-term objectives of the industry in finding a slow phasing out of the Strowger electro-mechanical equipment into electronics were not being achieved in accordance with the ideas of Plessey and the Post Office. The sharp downward trend of manufacture of the Strowger gear has created these problems since then.
One difficulty in the telecommunications industry is that there are conflicting arguments about where the fault lies. It has been argued that, if Plessey and the

industry generally had a clear indication of a long-term programme of the phasing out of electro-mechanical gear in favour of electronics systems, there would be a peaceful transition.
In a letter to the trade unions in November 1975, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton drew attention to the conflicting views among the workers. He said:
I now turn to your questions six to twelve. On the modernisation projects at Edge Lane site, I raised this with the representatives of Plessey's management but I think that this is more for the Company than for the Government to comment on.
You say that the Plessey company have complained that they have no official planning base to work from and you have asked when the Post Office will confirm ordering levels. This has now been done at the meeting with the Chairman of the Post Office to which I referred earlier and you can take it that the levels of orders then confirmed are to be regarded as definitive.
The workers, having suffered a great loss of jobs to accommodate that plan, now find, instead of a definitive ordering policy, that major redundancies are once more threatening the industry. Therefore, the problems remain unresolved and the necessary relationship between the industry and its main customer leaves much to be desired in co-ordination and planning.
Last week we met representatives of the management of Plessey in Liverpool. They showed us graphs and gave evidence of their commitment for the transitional period. However, even their figures, which visualised a higher level of wastage because of sickness and retirement, were not realised, and that created a further problem.
The decisions that have been taken affecting this industry have not been taken by the workers, but it is the workers and their families who suffer when they lose their jobs. That is why I support the stand taken by the workers at Speke, at Kirkby and at Edge Lane. Those workers are defending their jobs. Given that they have had virtually no say in the decisions —or, rather, the lack of them—in the industry over the years, it is right that they should not just passively accept that the answer for them is to join the never-ending dole queue on Merseyside.
My hon. Friends the Members for Onnskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) know


that the workers are seeking to protect their jobs not only for themselves but for the benefit of those who in the near future will seek to obtain work on Merseyside. If those jobs are not defended and retained, the already scandalous position in regard to youth employment will be worsened.
We were grateful that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister intervened with alacrity and commissioned the Posner Report so that we could have a proper assessment of the problem. We have been bedevilled by a lack of information. At no time in the recent past has Plessey attempted to acquaint Members of Parliament representing these areas and the workers with the facts.
The present work-in at the factories must be accepted as a reality of the desperate situation in the areas. The threatened redundancies of these workers makes it difficult to get to grips with the problem dispassionately.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton has raised the question of the possibility of reducing telephone traiffs in an effort to invigorate the telecommunications industry, as lower tariffs would encourage people to have telephones installed. In discussions which we have had with management—and I have no absolute evidence that this is correct—it has been argued that while this step would be helpful it would have only a minimum effect on the total problem. While it is a helpful contribution, it is not seen as a solution.
For that reason, I urge the Government to say clearly to the telecommunications industry that proper consideration must be given to the Department's proposals, to action that the National Enterprise Board may take, to the question of the effect of the temporary employment subsidy, and to the question of the prospects of a co-operative. None of these things can be discussed unless a proper climate can be created. I also urge the Minister to urge his right hon. Friend to urge Plessey's to withdraw the notices of redundancy until the discussions can take place and the workers can take their proper position in those discussions.
It is my opinion that this is a classic example of an industry that requires

Government intervention. We will not get the co-ordination, planning and the long-term interests of the industry resolved unless we take it into public ownership. That is another matter that the Government should consider.
It is not just a question of the future of Plessey's. I know that the Government are concerned about the prospect of Official Trustee intervention and the effect of that. If these considerations are to be treated in a meaningful way, there must be a return to near normality for the Plessey workers.
This is merely the tip of the iceberg for the telecommunications industry. We are talking about the whole future of the British telecommunications industry, and, therefore, we cannot afford to fiddle around with this problem. The Government must act as speedily as possible in a decisive manner. They should treat this matter with urgency and on the scale of a national disaster, because if the telecommunications industry fails it will be a national disaster.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene briefly in his Adjournment debate. There is a whole cloud of confusion and misery hanging over the telecommunications industry and many people, not least hon. Members, have attempted to attribute blame to Plesseys, the Post Office, or the Government.
I am not concerned with who is to blame—that is a matter for the Government acting with the company. I am concerned about employment prospects on Merseyside as a whole. This is a parochial matter for my constituency, where there are 350 to 400 jobs at risk in the Plessey factory at Kirkby. That may not seem many, but in a town like Kirkby, where there have been so many redundancies and closures recently, it is a disaster. The town is now threatened by the closure of Albright and Wilson, and there are rumours of further redundancies at the GEC-AEI factory in Kirkby Road. In these circumstances, even 350 jobs are too many to lose.
Unemployment of 20 per cent. in Kirkby is the highest in the United Kingdom and the highest in any town of


its size in Western Europe. The unemployment situation is catastrophic, and the effect of losing another 400 jobs is unimaginable in terms of the blow to morale and the sapping of confidence. We are talking not just about the fight for 400 jobs. We are talking about the fight for survival of a whole town and the confidence of the people in that town's future and prosperity.
It is all very well to say, as many people have said, that the majority of the employees at Kirkby factory are women. With male and juvenile unemployment so high locally, the fact is that the majority of those women are family breadwinners. If they go to the wall through loss of their jobs, their families will suffer. Important though the employment of these women will be of itself, we have to remember as well the families whom they represent and for whom, in the unfortunate unemployment situation, they are the primary breadwinners.
The women there have already indicated their determination to save their jobs. It was the women at the Kirkby factory who started the first occupation and sit-in, just as their colleagues did at the Fisher-Bendix works nearby, now a co-operative. It is not a peculiarity of Merseyside people that they are militant and immediately turn to occupation and sit-in. They do it because they know that once they are turned out of the factory and shunted away from the door, there are no other jobs for them to go to locally. They are not doing it simply to be bloody-minded or recalcitrant or obstructionist. It is because they know that unless they do it, there will be no jobs for them this year, next year, the year after that, and perhaps for ever. There are no alternative employment prospects available to them. As people are doing in other parts of the country, they are fighting for their jobs.
Plessey wants the jobs of my constituents, but it does not want the work to go away altogether. It suggests taking jobs from my constituents and shunting the work to South Shields. I do not want to get into the situation of dog biting dog. As a Socialist, I believe in fair shares for all. But I am concerned that an area like mine, where we have the highest level of unemployment, should take the major brunt of the job loss,

with the work taken to other parts of the country.
I said at the beginning that I was not interested in apportioning blame. Nevertheless, I must say that Plessey has had it all its own way. It has blamed the Post Office and it has blamed the Government. They are certainly culpable, but only to an extent. Plessey, too, must bear a major part of the blame for what is happening. It has failed to invest adequately during the last decade in order to develop new technology and new techniques and install new equipment. It has failed to win the export orders which new technology could have won for it, thereby providing work. It has failed to bring new products to areas like Kirkby. It has failed in a whole variety of ways to take advantage of the opportunities open to it, both in this country and, more importantly, abroad.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to impress upon Plessey that, in exchange for any help that may go to the company from the Government through action on the Post Office, Plessey will return a quid pro quo and extend the 90-day redundancy notice—and here I remind the House that the notice is so long only because of this Government's Employment Protection Act. Without it, the notice would probably have been one week and the workers would have been out on the street already. Could we not have a longer breathing space while these consultations with the Post Office go on? During a longer period the company would be able to diversify and think of ways and means of rationalising production so as to bring new products to areas where they are most needed—areas of high unemployment.
Could not the Government explore what has been inadequately explored so far—the possibility of concluding a planning agreement with Plessey and, indeed, the whole of the telecommunications industry? There is dire need for such an agreement, and a great deal of benefit could derive from it to the Post Office, the Government, Plessey and other companies involved. It is a great pity and a great cause of regret to me and my hon. Friends that we do not have what was supposed to be in the Industry Bill, the compulsion to have planning agreements in circumstances of this kind.
I emphasise that we are not concerned with the technicalities of the issue. We are concerned primarily with the jobs that will be lost once and for ever on Merseyside. We have had too many jobs lost. Every time we take one step forward with new advance factories or new industry moving into the area, we take two steps backwards in losing jobs. We have had enough. We are not prepared to tolerate this any more.
We fully support the sit-in and the work-in in Kirkby and all steps taken by employees on Merseyside to protect their jobs.

10.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer): First, may I say how much I sympathise and understand the strong feelings expressed by my hon. Friends, who have expressed the views of Merseyside most cogently. It causes me considerable distress that we hear the same sort of case made far too often. Only on Monday my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), who is taking a keen interest in the debate, was making much the same sort of case on the same subject. Alas, it is not the first time.
I do not have much time left in which to reply. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) that the Government seem to be taking the brunt of the blame for the situation, whereas I think it is only fair that some apportionment of the blame must be made to the private sector of industry. If we have a private enterprise mixed economy, that must be pointed out.
As Plessey's own announcements make clear, the effect has been a cumulative one. It does not simply depend on the 1976 cuts announced by the Post Office. As Plessey said in the announcement, restoration of the 1976 cuts would not benefit the industry for 12 months. It would not be unreasonable to expect that a prudent and reasonable company would have made provision for developing new projects, especially since the company had a profit of £34 million before tax for the year 1975–76. Clearly, there was something in the kitty that could have been used for research and development.
If investment had been made in manufacturing plant and machines, the company would have had a 100 per cent. tax allowance against corporation tax when making those profits. The present position is not unhelpful to companies which are prepared to use enterprise, and in a private enterprise situation it is not unreasonable to expect private enterprise to show just that. Clearly, much of the decision-making capacity here was in the hands of the Plessey management and not in the hands of the workers.
I come now to the question of the Post Office cuts. It is quite true, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, that in the past two and a half years the level of orders by the Post Office for the latter part of this decade, particularly for telephone exchange equipment, has fallen sharply. I shall not go into the reasons in great detail now because they are fairly well known. The reasons include the general recession in Western Europe following the increases in oil prices and increasing technology and alterations in technology, which meant that with new equipment more calls could be handled more easily.
The net annual growth in the number of exchange connections has fallen from around 9 per cent. in the early 1970s to around 5 per cent. in 1975–76. In the worst six-month period from October 1975 to March 1976, there were more business telephone disconnections than installations. Although business has picked up, the position still remains that the changes in technique have brought about serious alterations.
But the latest cuts in the Post Office ordering programme announced by the Post Office in November 1976 are due to a quite different cause. I am sure my hon. Friends will make the point in Merseyside that these cuts were in no way part of the Government's expenditure cuts. They were the result of new computer-based studies which measured the traffic through telephone exchanges more accurately and matched it more closely with existing capacity than was previously possible. The studies revealed a very much larger amount of spare capacity than had been expected.
The Post Office was faced with the fact that even a reduced ordering programme


on the October 1975 scale would provide a significant amount of equipment which was simply not needed.

Mr. Loyden: Can my hon. Friend confirm whether the telephone traffic had reduced?

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. This is part of the general investigation which we have announced which is to be undertaken by Michael Posner of Cambridge University. We have asked him to consider the assessments which led the Post Office in November 1976 to reduce the future level of orders for telecommunications equipment. We hone that he will be able to do that within the 90-day period. I am sorry that Plessey has taken the action it has. It would have been far better to have awaited the outcome of the investigation.
There are other remedial steps which have been suggested by my hon. Friends. One was an all-out ordering campaign and promotional campaign by the Post Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) mentioned the question of installation charges. We shall certainly take up with the Post Office the question of its using its discretion in this respect to a greater degree than hitherto. It has discretion in setting installation charges up to a maximum of £45. We shall take this matter up with the Post Office to see whether it will help and whether more vigorous marketing will assist in improving the rate of installation of telephone services.
The general position is extremely serious. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston mentioned that a sit-in was taking place as a demonstration of the strength of feeling in the area on this matter. The shop stewards of the Kirkby plant have asked for a meeting with Ministers, and this is being arranged.
The Government are very willing to consider an application for a workers' co-operative, bearing in mind the very difficult background that a workers' cooperative must have a product to market—something people actually want—and that a workers' co-operative must he assessed under the general published criteria of viability that we apply to all schemes for assistance.
Under Section 21 of the Department of Industry's published criteria for selective assistance, however, there is a provision relating to the social need and unemployment position surrounding that application. Of course, that would weigh very heavily in any assessment which was made. We shall certainly consider an application very carefully, and we are looking forward to meeting the Kirkby shop stewards for this serious and imporant discussion.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I do not want my hon. Friend the Minister to raise any false hopes among my constituents. Is he now saying as a matter of Government policy that the Government will consider an application from the shop stewards at the Kirkby factory for that factory to become a co-operative like KME across the road?

Mr. Cryer: I am saying that if application is made for that factory it will be given serious consideration. I must point out, however, that there are published criteria. Simply calling an undertaking a workers' co-operative is not a solution. A co-operative would have to have a product which people wanted and which could be marketed. If an application is made, we shall subject it to very close scrutiny. Within that scrutiny, however, there are provisions for consideration of social factors. Economic viability is not the only consideration, although it is important.
I fully understand the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orms-kirk about planning agreements. I regret that planning agreements have not made much greater headway. We would be in a much better position with the whole of industry if they had.
We are happy and willing to approach Plessey to see whether it will extend the 90-day period which the Government, in the teeth of criticism and opposition from the Conservatives, applied under the Employment Protection Act.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.